< 25 September	27 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. JForget 23:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corinne Tu[edit]

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

Delete. One out of 141 annual scholars does not meet the guidelines for WP:ACADEMIC. Insufficient notability at present. WWGB (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about being named "2007 Miss Teen San Francisco"? Deltawk (talk) 05:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on whether it is considered a "notable award or honor" per WP:ANYBIO. The contest/award does not have a Wikipedia article, which suggests that it may not be notable. WWGB (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 05:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while this award is a great achievement for someone of that age, opening the door for biogs of ~140 school leavers per year has the potential of ruining the lives of at least a few of them. Unless they have other significant awards or achievements, the recipients can be listed on pages like "List of 2008 Presidential Scholars". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:38, 22 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 23:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While in principle I agree entirely with John Vandenberg, the cat is out of the bag on this; there's an official Presidential Scholars site, which appears to be opt-in for the honorees [1]. The award/honor itself is clearly notable. And there does seem to be a very rate of honorees accumulating other forms of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WWGB. I don't see any indication that being a Presidential Scholar means that someone will meet the general notability guideline. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have never considered such school honors significant in themselves for notability--at a much higher level, we don't even consider the Rhodes Scholars as necessarily notable, though of course a good number of them do become so in their later career. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that it does not meet WP:GNG. Richard (talk) 23:26, 27 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. Apologies, I've forgot one late comment. Also it needs some serious improvements too in order to avoid any potential future AFDs. JForget 17:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban nobility[edit]

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

This article hasn't really been in improved on since November 2007 and is written like a student wrote this for high school English class. There aren't many sources on this topic and if there were, it should just be incorporated in History of Cuba and History of Spain. BrianY (talk) 03:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep-valid topic, just needs a rewrite and sourcing. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree. I have no love for white Cubans, and given their vocal support of their interests, I can only imagine they are too busy drinking Sangria and reminiscing about the good old days before the evil Castro to contribute to this article, but this topic is valid. Anarchangel (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is something people might want to look up. Yes, the article needs improving, but there are a lot of articles like this. If they are here and someone reads it who knows of sources, he/she is likely to improve it. Also it does no harm having the article.--Toddy1 (talk) 04:12, 27 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 23:39, 26 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) 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sugandthan Nadarajah[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. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 08:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any sources to improve the article or it's notability. I'd suggest redirecting to Tamil Snake gang perhaps, but it may not be worth it. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:14, 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, JForget 23:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. As with Tamil Snake Gang, very little notability outside of one event but lots of attention-seeking. Wikipedia should not be used as a badge of honour for gang members who appear in court for murder. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a member of a NN street gang. If he was notable the gang ought to have an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 29 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) 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Lawlor[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. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 07:56, 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, JForget 23:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 01:12, 27 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 keep. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Die Täter sind unter uns: Über das Schönreden der SED-Diktatur[edit]

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

article purports that the book is "widely acclaimed" yet it doesn't give any evidence/citation missing. Can't even find it on German wiki. I would speedy-tag this as non-notable, but other people's opinion might be needed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has extensive reviews in publications such as Die Welt,[2] Der Tagesspiegel[3] and Die Tageszeitung.[4] Phil Bridger (talk) 11:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn I'll add those ref's to the article. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 15:41, 27 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. – B.hotep •talk• 13:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said I look away! (album)[edit]

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

non-notable 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 22:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatantly non-notable; I've just prodded the article on the musician responsible. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any references to this album at all, no indication it might be notable. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:18, 22 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 23:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Never asserts notability. No chart information or even evidence that it exists. The only ghits go to the Wikipedia article and the artist's MySpace and Facebook pages. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:46, 27 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 not-delete. Exactly what to do with the article (merge/redirect/leave as-is) can be hashed out on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albion Hotel[edit]

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

Article does not meet minimum notability guidelines Miyagawa (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Jeremjay 24 21:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Balmain. If all that's warranted is a mention there, then that's okay and amounts to a redirect. But it seems like it's probably worth at least a mention in that article if it was truly established in 1860. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:14, 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, JForget 23:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established, fails WP:CORP. WWGB (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Balmain, New South Wales Orderinchaos 03:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to being an historic building. As such, is not required to meet WP:CORP, but need to make sure that the article doesn't start to promote the current use of the building, without it meeting WP:CORP. It could well be a good idea to merge, although merge to suburb doesn't sound so good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if it really dates back to 1860 then that is really old for Australia.--filceolaire (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Balmain, New South Wales, which is the best alternative to deletion. After looking through Google News Archive, I could not find any sources that would establish this pub's notability.
I found a number of sources that dated from the 1800s, but all were passing mentions that could not even verify that this was a pub. For example, this brief mention from The Sydney Herald (dated May 18, 1869) provides little context. Cunard (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love King[edit]

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

insufficient sourcing. until more information has been released about the album. the page should be redirected to The-Dream or be deleted Str8cash (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete my vote Str8cash (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (by the way, delete is presumed for the nom, unless otherwise specified) - If notability appears once this album is released, then recreate. Right now, isn't notable, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 15:18, 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, JForget 23:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 01:08, 27 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 Villieläin. JForget 23:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mikael Hakamies[edit]

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

Contested redirect to band's page. Does not meet WP:BIO, lacks 3rd party references. RadioFan (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Villieläin. Subject does not have notability independent of the band. JUJUTACULAR | (TALK) 20:49, 20 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 23:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect no notability beyond the band, redirect to the band page is appropriate RadioFan (talk) 12:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Advert. The required press coverage has not been provided. Sandstein 06:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aircut[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Gnews returns press releases. Gsearch returns primarily promotional articles. Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Isn't this just a copycat of Flowbee? Clearly not the first of it's kind or even notable.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Engineered from August 2008 to August 2009 would seem to indicate this is a very new product and unless there's been a lot of anticipation during its development, it's unlikely to be notable upon introduction. I was able to find this article. But I will note that it looks like a press release rehash with much of the article consisting of company quotes. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 23 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 23:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am this article's original author. This product is new, yes, but it already has sales all over the country. Also, it is the first of its kind as it is a haircutter that does not use a vacuum cleaner hooked up to it to generate the vacuum, it is self-contained. This makes it the first of it's kind and notable. Press is building for this product and articles will be added by me personally as they are available. As for the Flowbee...well, no one is calling for the deletion of the Chevrolet page because Ford built a car first. --joesampaul (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - can you provide examples of this press because I've not been able to find much myself. - Whpq (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Also note that there are books, new stories, etc. on Chevrolet. Where is all the press for Aircut? If/when you become famous, then you can get an article. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Bell (Australia)[edit]

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

Non-notable, promotion. No notable credits and only sources are MySpace and an agency profile. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 16:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 02:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article is spammy and doesn't have sources to meet WP:BIO Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 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, JForget 23:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Richard (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I first saw this listed I thought hell no, clearly notable. But this is a different Kate Bell, one with no clear claim to notability and lacking significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Delete until something is written about her instead of by her or her DVDs achieve any significant recognition. Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:38, 29 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 per G7 by Athaenara. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Jenkins[edit]

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

This murderer fails WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 15:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as stated by WP:BLP1E, biographies of people are generally unwarranted when the sources don't discuss them outside of the context of the event. This appears to be a clear case of that. If we take out the single event (which isn't very notable by itself) from the person's life and only talk about the person themselves, then an article is clearly not appropriate. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 16:22, 20 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 23:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as author. -Halo (talk) 23:54, 27 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) 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Albright[edit]

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

Does not appear to achieve notability - no work more notable than the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. JaGa^talk 13:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable roles, no notable festivals. She may become notable in the future, so do not "salt" this one. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 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, JForget 23:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only source I could find was this one: [5], which is promotional material that in no way suggests notability. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:44, 28 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. JForget 23:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Americablog[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:WEB. While there are many GHits to the blog, and there is some coverage of issues raised by the blog, there is little to no discussion of the blog itself, as required by WP:WEB. At the first AFD, one of the issues raised focused on the number of Google News references, but there was no mention of the depth of the references, most of which were nothing more than On AMERICAblog, John Aravosis... The article is better written, but still not adequately referenced, and there is not sufficient coverage in reliable sources to rectify the situation. The article notes three events in which the blog participated: revealing that Jeff Gannon had been an escort, buying Wesley Clark's cell phone records (which belongs in the article on John Aravosis, not his blog), and protesting a Snickers ad which ran during Super Bowl XLI. The Gannon issue can be mentioned in his article, and the Clark phone records in the article on Aravosis, but a separate article need not exist for the blog.Horologium (talk) 12:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Two of the references are non-trivial and establish barely sufficient notability for an article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to John Aravosis and merge any worthwhile content in there. N p holmes (talk) 13:06, 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, JForget 23:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Americablog is a very popular liberal blog/newsite, which has broken a number of prominent stories since 2004. I will try to check to improve sourcing, but there are tons of news sources which should be chopped off the project if this one was.--Milowent (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I plan to nominate more blogs for deletion, this one is the first one (alphabetically) on the list. It may be a "popular" blog, but there is nothing about the blog itself in reliable sources. The Wesley Clark cell-phone records purchase, the most noteworthy thing about the blog, isn't really about the blog; it's about John Aravosis, who already has an article. Horologium (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respect the forthright statement of your plans, but my own view, considering the changes in communications media since Wikipedia was started, is that we have been unduly restrictive, and ought to be covering considerably more of them, though it will not be easy to establish good criteria. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Aside from any focus on how "popular" the blog is, AMERICAblog has been a generator of discussion about, and thus a focal point of, a number of notable political controversies over the last few years.

The most prominent of these has been the disclosure that a journalist given preference in the White House Press Briefing Room during the Bush administration had scant journalistic credentials and was in fact using a pseudonym, sidelining from his main career as a proprietor of a male prostitute service. This controversy raised a number of questions, which were then discussed in mainstream news both online and on television. The controversy, and AMERICAblog's role in it, then re-emerged as a point of reference more recently when the Washington Post's Dana Milbank posited that President Obama's reliance on the Huffington Post's Nico Pitney during a White House Press Briefing addressing the Iranian election crisis constituted an indecorous Presidential/press relationship.

Another controversy pertained to the public response to a legal brief filed by the current Administration's Justice Department in response to a suit that challenged the constitutionality of Bill Clinton's Defense of Marriage Act: AMERICAblog generated the analysis that the brief equated gay marriage with pedophilia and incest, a view which then permeated discussion of the brief, which then led to threats among Democratic party donors that they would upset the party's coalition by working against the Administration. The controversy was followed by the Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan, who ultimately pointed to additional analysis which undercut AMERICAblog's perspective.

These incidents affect discussion of notable political figures, which in turn affects their political sway, which in turn affects the direction of public affairs -- this is one of those "we hold these truths to be self-evident" type of things among avid users of the internet, which Wikipedians are.

Thus, I strongly disagree with the assertion that the Wesley Clark cell phone records purchase is "the most notable thing about the blog".

I also disagree with the suggestion that the blog's article should be re-directed to John Aravosis. Aside from the fact that the above-mentioned controversies were generated from the blog, it is also significant that the blog has other notable contributors. A.J. Rossmiller's book Still Broken: A Recruit's Inside Account of Intelligence Failures, From Baghdad to the Pentagon is a well-documented first-hand analysis of the conduct of the Iraq War from inside the U.S. intelligence apparatus, which deserves its own article (so I'll probably write it).

I will find appropriate sources and add them to the article (but not today). And no, I don't have any association with the blog nor do I know any of the people I just mentioned.Brrryan (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no coverage *of the blog itself*, other than mentions of the blog's existence and its role in a few controversies. As for redirecting a blog to its most prominent contributor, Daily Pundit redirects to William Thomas Quick and Firedoglake redirects to Jane Hamsher, to name two which come to mind immediately. A. J. Rossmiller may be notable enough for his own article (although he doesn't have one yet), but John Aravosis definitely qualifies. Horologium (talk) 12:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this argument before, i.e., that a lack of in-depth coverage focused on a blog itself or other publication means it isn't notable, but I don't believe that is the reality here on wikipedia. In this case, the sheer number of times that Americablog is referenced by other news sources, and the stories Americablog is credited with breaking, should be in sum more than sufficient. I went ahead and added a small section to the article on "Rankings" to give some additional feel for the impact of the blog. When it comes to media sources, its not unusual that other media sources don't write profiles of them--its the aggregate of references that should be weighed. This doesn't only happen with blogs, its also common with smaller newspapers -- there's no evidence of profiles existing about print sources like Rapid City Journal, Ames Tribune, Bozeman Daily Chronicle, and Yellowknifer, but apparent consensus is in favor of keeping these articles. Those are simply small newspapers in one newspaper towns; while an online media sources shouldn't get an article just just because it exists, i think it should when the sum of references from other sources is significant--Milowent (talk) 13:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agreed--this affects conventional media too. Size and demonstrated primacy in an area can sometimes be notability. DGG ( talk ) 13:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just using the same logic employed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zombietime, where my arguments, which ran similar to yours, were drowned out by insistence that coverage by mainstream (i.e. non-blog) media on three continents, over at least two (and arguably three) stories kicked off by photoessays from the site did not matter, since the blog itself was not discussed, only the content. In at least that case, the reality was that the standards were enforced. There are dozens of blogs which have less coverage (in breadth and depth) that that blog received, and I will be going through and ensuring that the same standards are applied. Horologium (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind the deletionist darkside, articles get deleted without absolute consistency (and it shall always be that way). The guidance as it is does not require in-depth discussions to show notability, e.g.,Wikipedia:Notability_(media)(essay), "the depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." Reviewing that Zombietime AfD, I'm sure I could make arguments that Americablog is more notable, but I probably would have been in favor of keeping that as well. Instead of trying to eliminate articles about blogs that need improvement and not deletion, you could always request userification of Zombietime to try to improve it and hopefully one day recreate it in a stronger more-defensible iteration. --Milowent (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have a horse in the race in reference to Zombietime; I never edited the article, although I was familiar with the site. The problem with it (and with all blogs) is that there is usually not a lot of coverage of blogs (content-wise) unless there is some sort of controversy about the blog itself, and then the articles can become very coat-racky. I don't think that zombietime (or many other websites, including this one) pass the notability guidelines as currently written. However, I dislike seeing a double standard (and rest assured, there is a double standard) in which articles get deleted because of an interpretation of a standard which is not applied equally to other blogs. Americablog is first on my list alphabetically, but it's also a test case; its notability stems from a pair of issues (similar to zombieblog), in which there is substantial coverage of issues raised by the blog, but little coverage of the blog itself. I've not canvassed (I have a philosophical objection to that sort of thing) but none of the editors who participated in the zombietime AfD have commented on this one; I'd like to see if they have the same attitude on this blog as they did on the other. Horologium (talk) 19:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on balance, I think the sources are sufficient to establish the political importance of the blog and thus its notability. Other blogs should be discussed elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 04:40, 30 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) 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Community Equity[edit]

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

Contested prod. Open-source project. "New model on how to calculate social values," unfortunately it is not referenced by reliable sources. The graphics are of a kind that one would expect to see on a promotional pamphlet. The current notability of the project itself is not asserted. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following updates has been made on 20 September 2009

Re:Reliable Source> added references from iKNOW 07 and KnowTech 06 proceedings
Re: notability of project: added reference to Open Source project sources
graphics: changed equity graphics

Is there a way to mark the article as draft as we will make a updates and improvement over the next few days ? peterreiser -^{User:peterreiser}

Following updates has been made on 21. September 2009

Re: Reliable Source> added patent link, history, related open source projects

We kindly request to remove this page deletion request from this article peterreiser -^{User:peterreiser}

If anything, it's actually worse now. A patent link is not a reliable source to establish notability: it only establishes existence. The "reliable sources" are from Peter Reiser, who obviously is involved in the development of this project. What we call reliable sources are usually the kind the subject is unable to get modified without involving an attorney in the process. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the referenced sources like Shel Israel, Robert Scoble, Norman Nielsen, Daniel Barbosa and others ? Are they not viewed as reliable ? Peterreiser (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. The Barbosa-Scoble source is highly promotional in nature (it begins, At Dow Jones, we..., and the URL contains the word "solutions," which would indicate involvement as a reseller or something like that), therefore unreliable. The Nielsen source only qualifies as "trivial," that is, it only mentions Community Equity in passing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Barbosa-Scoble source: Community Equity is not a product - it is a concept AND and the proof of the concept is the Open Source implementation.

Re: Nielsen source: NN group is one of the recognized experts in corporate culture and the human-centered product development. The mentioned report covers 5 pages on Community Equity (the web reference only outlines the report structure) Peterreiser (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, by "we" you mean yourself and who else? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a [team] of different companies and research organizations which are actively working on the open source version of Community equity. Peterreiser (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you would be well-advised to read our guidelines on conflict of interest. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The aim is to describe the Community Equity concept in a neutral way. I just added a statement on the talk page as recommended in the conflict of interest guidelines. . I highly respect the Wikipedia guidelines and policies. If you still think this article does not adhere to these policies or there is still a CoI then the article should be deleted. Peterreiser (talk) 14:27, 22 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 23:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hope you become notable, but there is no indication that you actually already are . I suggest waiting until there are some third-party articles about you, and then trying an article. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 29 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 12 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Some strong suggestions for redirecting but no consensus for a target. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fake Shemp[edit]

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

There is nothing particularly notable about this article. "Fake Shemp" is a neologism used as an expression by one director (Sam Raimi) as a substitute for the well-accepted term Body double. The article itself basically describes the practice of body doubles and stand-ins from a very incomplete, focused perspective (as if the Three Stooges had completely invented the concept, and Sam Raimi is the only person to have ever thought to use stand-ins since). It uses a single reliable source to establish the fact that Shemp had a stand-in - the other sources are other Wikipedia articles. In the article's own words, "use of the term is limited". Cute cartoon, though. Badger Drink (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joe Palma. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think if the article is to be re-directed, it should be to Body double, as this neologism is a synonym for that. Redirecting it to Joe Palma is... more "trivia" than "encyclopedia". Badger Drink (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that Joe Palma is the only person to whom this label was given with any degree of notability... -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - People informally talking about some guy being a fake Shemp is somehow more notable than the term being used in the credits of movies? Nah. The thing is, if someone types Fake Shemp, the odds are they're looking for what, not who. We don't have "Fake Julia Roberts" or "Fake Kim Basinger" redirect to Shelley Michele. "Fake Bela Lugosi" doesn't go to Ed Wood's wife's chiropractor. "Star of Naked Gun" doesn't redirect to Leslie Neilson, "Tallest building in the world" doesn't redirect to that ugly monstrosity built by indentured servants in the environmental blight known as Dubai, and, perhaps most tellingly, Fifth Beatle is an article about various applications of the term, not an article devoted to figuring out who the "ultimate" fifth Beatle was. Encyclopedias are for answering "what". Search engines are for "who" and trivia in general. Badger Drink (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree that the article has gone way beyond it's original intentions. Fake Shemp has become an accepted term within the industry for a Body Double, but if you feel that it doesn't deserve it's own page yet then it should be redirected to Body Double. I agree that the heavy reference to Joe Palma and the stooges is somewhat misplaced and off-subject and editing may be required. But only about 20% of my original article has remained, thus I feel it no longer is in my hands, but I thank you for calling this to my attention. However, please note that the heavy editing and additions by other people seem to indicate that it has become a very common term, much thought about and searched. I feel deletion is too strong of an action, while editing and/or redirection and inclusion in Body Double may be much more levelheaded. Act as you please, but please act wisely. On a personal note, I would like to ask you to refrain from making politically sensitive statements when acting in the capacity of an editor that undermine your reliability. Also, please create a userpage. Although some of your comments have merit and you seem like an intelligent person, it's a little hard to take you seriously (and your talk page certainly doesn't really help your cause). An editor's job is to know what needs to be corrected and not who is to be insulted or blamed in order to make your point. Thank you for your concerns. --The Singularity (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Act as you please, but please create a user page or I, Exalted and Esteemed Wikipedia Editor the Singularity, shan't take you seriously"? Really? Sorry, some of us have matured past the sort of teenaged self-obsession that inspires user pages. I'd gladly refund the financial and emotional costs of needing to click one extra link before figuring out if I've been around long enough to take seriously, except doing so would only encourage continued whinging. I'm not quite sure what it is about my talk page that also hampers your ability to control your righteous tsk-tsking urges - I'd ask you to leave a message there, but I'm afraid your doing so would hamper my ability to take said page seriously. Badger Drink (talk) 11:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you for effectively proving my point. Now we can get back to the issue at hand and seize this senseless squabble. I'm sorry if I touched a sore point. I reread what I wrote and I guess I came across a bit rude. Sorry about that. It was not meant as a reproach and I apologize. It was meant as advice and no disrespect intended. You are of course right that a user page is no requirement, but it does help in establishing a character in this no-face internet world. I wouldn't go as extreme as saying it is a 'teenage self-obsession', although I do get your point. You have a very valid argument, the article needs correcting. I suggest we remove the heavy references to Joe Palma and leave it as is, or merge with Body Double, the former being my preference. Any thoughts? --The Singularity (talk) 13:43, 24 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 22:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As a significant term in its own right. It may mean something similar, but apparently not exactly. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 09:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it does seem to be a distinct topic, and it should not be redirected so long as body double doesn't mention the term. Powers ^T 14:02, 28 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) 19:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John T. Woods[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Google search didn't turn up much except his own homepage. Seems to fail WP:BIO. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Multixfer... we've been trying quite hard to figure Wikipedia out on our end and get this article up. My name is Chris, I work with Hassman Entertainment, John T. Woods's management company. While a Google search does turn up the official website of John T. Woods, you'll also notice that his body of work, as listed on IMDB.com, is third on the list. He has been working since 2002/2003 and is a credible actor with legitimate credits. Right now, he is working on '24' on FOX and 'The Forgotten' on ABC. If there's anything we can do on our end to make it so you, personally, don't take issue with the page, by all means, let me know, and I will do my best to rectify the situation. Thanks for your patience, and understanding. Cheers. Chris. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spsfilms (talk • contribs)

(in regards to Multixfer's other concerned post) No worries, this isn't something to get offended by, by any means. We're just trying to do the best we can and we thought we were doing a legit listing. While it is being done by us, his management company, we still feel that the article is legit as his work can be seen on Television/Film/DVD, he's an actor, not the subject of a book. But you have a 'job' to do as well, albeit an 'honorary' one, and I can respect that, so by all means, follow through, and sorry to have broken the rules. Cheers. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spsfilms (talk • contribs) 00:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:19, 23 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 22:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not seem to have had any significant major roles yet,. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 27 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) 06:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adrenalina-NY[edit]

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

Non-notable organization. Was restored from speedy so author could add references but none that satisfy WP:RS have been. Name of authoring account points towards COI. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:09, 20 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 22:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references, sources. Fails WP:N, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CORP. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Len (band). Stifle (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Superstar (album)[edit]

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

Unfinished AFD by anon. The rationale listed on the article's talk page is: "PROD removed by creator with no improvements - doesn't meet the criteria for music albums. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC) " I'm simply listing it for them. Dismas|^(talk) 03:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Little more than a track listing. The band is a one-hit wonder and the hit was not from this album. Three of the "references" contain only track lists or nothing at all. The album has never charted nor have any song on the album. If it is to be redirected to Len (band) it should be renamed Superstar (Len album) because there is another album called Super Star. J04n(talk page) 12:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've heard of the band, so they are notable. This isn't a paper encyclopaedia, so there's no need to be over-the-top with weeding things out. The article is short but concise and could be improved in the future to flesh it out. Malick78 (talk) 19:47, 26 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 22:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Len (band). Agree with J04n to retitle this Superstar (Len album). The band is notable, but I can't find significant coverage of this album sufficient to meet the criteria for music albums. I'm open to changing vote to "Keep" if such coverage exists. Gongshow ^⊕ 06:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Len (band) There is no indication that this album passes the notability guidelines for albums. I have searched Google and Google News Archive and have been unable to find anything to prove this album's notability. Google News Archive returns mostly passing mentions and false positives. A redirect to the band's article would be the best alternative to deletion, since it preserves content that would aid those who want to perform a merge in completing one. Cunard (talk) 08:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus, (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Parry (NASCAR)[edit]

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

Article demonstrates no notability. Article makes assumptions such as "probably had his own garage." Appears to be a NASCAR car owner who had limited success and then quit. I searched google and google news to see if I could dig up anything to improve the article, but I couldn't come across anything. Deletion may be the best solution. Steve Crossin ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article cannot be kept, I believe that better thing to do is to redirect the page into the 1955 Southern 500 article (since that was the only race that he was ever involve in during his run as a NASCAR owner). GVnayR (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Maybe some information can be found in old NASCAR publications because he is from the pre-modern era (i.e., either the old Winston Cup Scene magazines or any of the newer NASCAR magazines out there). Otherwise, I will stick to my recommendation to redirect the article into the 1955 Southern 500 article. GVnayR (talk) 23:50, 23 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 22:48, 26 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) 10:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toolfarm[edit]

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

This article is about a nonnotable company that fails WP:ORG as it has not received significant coverage in third-party sources, nor has it pioneered anything especially innovative. All of the discussion that I could find consiss of trivial mentions or press releases. Them From Space 01:42, 20 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 22:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no article. Wikipedia can't be in the business of potentially being the prime promotional/informational source about products and companies. Miami33139 (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. A Google News Archive returned mostly press releases or trivial coverage. A Google Books search also did not return nontrivial coverage. Cunard (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Aaron[edit]

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

I see two claims for notability- (1) His students have performed in many famous performances, (2) He's taught in many colleges. None of them satisfy WP:PROF. ƒ(Δ)² 16:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per this and per nom. Pmlineditor^Talk 12:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability criteria. Jim Carmel (talk) 16:58, 26 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, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete -- many of the news articles mentioning him are about other cellists who, after studying with him, seem to have made it big (or at least bigger than Aaron himself). But under "not inherited", this doesn't really support keeping the article. Now, it seems there are quite a few such students, so perhaps he could be taken to have had an influence. But it's not the approach we usually take. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep-- Who exactly are his students? Having really notable students is a reason for notability, especially in such a personal field as performance. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC) changed from Keep. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps I overdid it with the words "made it big" -- the results in gnews were basically announcements regarding concerts by people who had studied with him. I was simply trying to suggest a path to perceiving notability -- not saying that I was convinced it was there (hence the delete vote). Someone who knows names in the music world would be better placed to judge in regard to the people named in those articles. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.

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

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

The result was Speedy keep - this is clearly a disruptive nomination. Furthermore, the related AfDs that closed as merge to this article in the last couple days are sufficient evidence that there is consensus for it to exist. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding animal[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

origional resarch and this article is becoming a junkyard for articles that should be deleted. 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 21:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After many of your AFDs closing with the result of merging to this article, you nominate this for deletion. Joe Chill (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a bad faith nomination. Joe Chill (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a bad faith nomination there are problems on the article with WP:OR.--3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 21:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the comments on your talk page, AFDs, removing referenced content, saying that the rescue template is canvassing, nominating articles for deletion after only a minute or two including winners of major awards, and suggesting a merge to this article in an AFD show that this is obviously a bad faith nomination. Joe Chill (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Joe Chill Evosoho, that your behavior deleting so many article recently is very troubling, and several other editors have said so too recently. Please don't put "delete" in a comment section, it makes it appear like there are two editors instead of one wanting to delete this article. If you want to put delete, put it in the nomination. Ikip (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep very well referenced article. What original research? Calling other editors contributions "junk" can be considered uncivil. Ikip (talk) 21:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination, considering that the nom has been actually merging other articles into this one, in the two hours immediately preceding nominating this one. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 26 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. There is a clear consensus to delete. If any editor wants this material to attempt a merge to the main article, just let me know. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of one-time characters in Johnny Test[edit]

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

This is a contested PROD. My PROD reason was "Almost by definition, one time appearing characters in almost any fiction or entertainment series are not going to be notable except in special circumstances making them particularly notable. Unless there are reliable sources for this list it should be deleted." To which the author posted a contesting comment on the talk page "THINK before deleting: Johnny Test has too many characters. Do you really want to delete before people haven't even SEEN the show can read it?". The article is unreferenced so I still think that we have notability, verifiability problems as well as a it being fancruft. This list is the sort of thing we might accept as an external link if it was published elsewhere, but it is not encyclopaedic information that should have an article here. DanielRigal (talk) 20:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely agree with nom's rationale. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A list of characters that have only one appearance. Joe Chill (talk) 13:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The individual characters will not be individually notable, so this is the reasonable compromise way of handing them., We should have at least a redirect tfor every named character in every notable show, so people can find out something--that's a proper purpose for an encyclopedia. We should have no V problems--just give the episode numbers--this sort of material is sourceable to the primary source. I agree with Joe that it is "a list of characters that have only one appearance" but I do not see why he assumes tbat is a reason for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 19:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would this not be the best place for it? --Paularblaster (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DGG's keep is laughable. Where do you propose finding sources? Lumping non-notable stuff into a list doesn't make it keepable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for WP:V, which I agree is important, the work itself is an acceptable source for fictional elements. as a personal comment, I seem to be being told there is no point in proposing compromise solutions. And it seems to me so very obvious that the way to deal with characters not deserving a full article is to give them a small part of a larger one, and for those not deserving even that, to include on a list. We could , I suppose, always merge this content into the main article. Lines of text in an article don't have to be notable sentence by sentence, just relevant. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree, no sources, no notability. We don't need to keep articles just to keep articles. Shadowjams (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We do not throw articles away simply because they currently lack sourcing, as AfD is most specifically not for cleanup... nor should any call another's opinion laughable. With the fictional work itself acceptable for WP:V, a WP:SPINOUT based upon the notability of the parent is always acceptable per guideline. However, the parent is not a tremendously huge article, so I would not be adverse to a merge of this list to Johnny Test where its notable is made clear and the list has context. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sidebar: I have a high-speed connection and personally do not have a major problem if any article's pages becomes waaaaaaaay too huge... and anyone with dialup or slow connections will have already learned patience from slow page loadings when visiting commercial sites, so overly long articles should never be of concern. Pack it in. With SPINOUT and LIST being more hated on a weekly basis, I predict that two will be either dismantled or declared historical within the next 12 months, and it will be accepted that articles can be as long as they need be, and the terms overburden and cumbersome removed from any consideration. For instance, absolutely everything in this encyclopedia about the commercial enterprises surrounding the Star Wars franchise, should be brought together into one massive article so that readers can find it all in one place instead of having to look at dozens of articles strewn all over the project in order to learn of the franchise's various minutae. Such proactive merges might be met unpopularly at first, but it makes finding the minutae that much easier. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 11:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I disagree about one point:LONG -- we are especially concerned with people with poor connections, because this is still the case for much of the audience for whom we are a key source of information--&sometimes the only reliable comprehensive source. . But this is not a real problem, for essentially and article or list can be divided. What I think will finally solve the LONG problem is a more sophisticated user interface which will be capable of dividing articles into segments as needed by the individual user--or a way of writing articles in modular parts that can, at the option of the user, be displayed as either small articles, or larger unified ones--so we'd have paragraphs about characters, that could be shown either as individual articles or included in a big one. DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has there ever been discussion about using collapsable sections in mainspace articles, such as I have seen in discussions elsewhere? This would then allow article sections to be as chapters in a book, but collapsed and expandable, rather than as seperate and often decried article pages being forced to seperately source notability... allowing the entire article to contain all information relevent to the subject. Since WP:STAND and WP:LIST and WP:SPINOUT seem to always result in dissention, why not remove the cause for dissention? MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Wikipedia is not paper, there no limits. If you aren't interested in this, there is no way you'd accidentally find your way to the page. List of one-time characters in The Simpsons was nominated for deletion six times [6] and it was kept. You gain nothing by deleting it, so leave it be. Dream Focus 15:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because Simpsons was kept, doesn't mean this must be. This isn't a matter of all or nothing. This is a seperate article NOT related to the Simpsons. Your reasoning for keeping appears to be just "I like it". You have shown no actual reasons for keeping it. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included on the and Johnny Test page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Merge with Johnny Test, there already is a long list of characters and reoccuring characters on that page. Ikip (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Trivial list clutter at best. If any of it is actually somewhat notable, then merge into Johnny Test. Brief characters of a television show rarely show notability. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The contents of the list are trivial and the list itself is trivial as it hasn't been discussed in reliable, third-party sources. We can't make up lists like this unless they have already been compiled, that is original research. Them From Space 19:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. There are no sources for the characters on the page, but Smash Badger could probably be merged into the article if some sources could be found for him. He has appeared in the show more than once, but the rest are non notable and can be deleted. Mokoniki | talk 21:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While one time characters can be notable enough for their own articles, such as Irene Adler or Professor Moriarty, these characters are clearly not notable enough for that. A list such as this is a legitimate spinoff article to keep the main article from growing to large. Edward321 (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no sources = no article. Direct quote from the policy WP:V: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Stifle (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 NFL schedule and odds[edit]

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

I declined a speedy on this, as not fitting into any speedy category, , but we do not have any articles of the same nature for other seasons, and I am not at all sure whether we ought to. Compare the article 2009 NFL season which represents the standard way we do this. I have no personal opinion--I leave it to the people who know the subject to reach a consensus. (If the consensus is that we should include odds, the question would then be whether to merge this back to the article for the season, or have a separate article. Again, I have no personal opinion.), FWIW, no actual odds seem to have yet been added, even for the games that have been played. DGG ( talk ) 19:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the odds change over short time scales at the discretion of the bookmakers, and this would fall under WP:NOT#DIR point 4 as far a deletion rational. Point 4 says Wikipedia is not, "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business." Abductive (reasoning) 19:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, adding odds is quite unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia isn't a television directory. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question are there closing odds, and, if so, would it be possible to add them season articles? DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the odds are set by bookmakers and fluctuate based on betting. There's no real reason to have this. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article is not needed, odds are not encyclopedic in nature. StryyderG (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely unencyclopaedic. – Pee Jay 00:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hell's Birth[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball for articles about future games six years before release: the time for an article will be after the game has been released and independent reviews show that it has become notable. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Six years is, well, a lot. Seems to be just some plans the author put together for a game that may never come out. No sources whatsoever to be found. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a game not out for six years?!?! This is clearly just some kids who got together with an idea to make a "Kick ass fighting game" - definitely not notable. Giant Snowman 11:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:N. Why isn't there a speedy catagory for such things? --Taelus (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We have discussed a speedy delete category for "things made up one day" several times now. I'd say it's on the edge of being accepted, but there's been some resistance each time. Gigs (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No sources available. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:14, 29 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. JForget 00:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mixcloud[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Mixcloud. Went beta in March 2009.

This is one Part of a larger attempt to use wikipedia for Spam and promotion, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#MIXCLOUD_LTD_Spam

Nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Cited entirely w/ links to the subject's official site. GNews turns up some hits, but only one is on an RS source and it's a trivial mention. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 18:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Advertisement. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Begrudging keep~~. Shamelessly promotional, but this is getting a lot of GNews hits. Needs rewriting though, or if no-one has the time to do that, it need reducing to a stub. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google news gets two hits from their search. One selling a credit service the other mentions them as paying for a DJ at someones party.--Hu12 (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I didn't know about the filters used on the AfD pages. Okay, not arguing. Delete. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete promotional, even if I like what comes out of it. Miami33139 (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Science Fiction (album)[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this ~~bootleg~~ album. Joe Chill (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bootleg albums are not presumed notable without sufficient coverage in reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't a bootleg album - it has been released several times on legit labels, and the article already links to an Allmusic review which provides significant coverage.--Michig (talk) 07:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make the article pass WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then why did you nominate for deletion on that basis? Anarchangel (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I nominated it for deletion because it fails WP:MUSIC (which is what I said and I said that it still does!). Joe Chill (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Granted, I might better have said, 'on the basis of it being a bootleg'. My point was, will you withdraw the word 'bootleg' from your nomination, as the album has been released on legitimate labels? Anarchangel (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:MUSIC is not as prescriptive regarding albums as it is with other areas. The fact that the artist is notable and that the album has received significant coverage from a reliable source is generally sufficient for an article to be kept.--Michig (talk) 09:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not from everything that I've seen. Joe Chill (talk) 09:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Specific, fairly detailed Allmusic coverage creates presumption of notability, and Amazon is selling it. An entry would also be particularly useful, as a warning to consumers about the dubious pedigree. If it ends up being deleted, though, it should first be moved to something like "Science Fiction (Alice Cooper album)", because there is at least one clearly notable album sharing the title, by Ornette Coleman. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

response - "Amazon is selling it" is like "available on iTunes": not evidence of anything except that somebody somewhere is trying to sell it. It certainly doesn't even approach being evidence of notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Annoyed response: Amazon (US) selling it is evidence that it's not a bootleg, which was part of the original deletion rationale, and which hadn't been retracted at the time I !voted. What I cited as evidence of notability was the relatively detailed Allmusic coverage, which is the sort of independent third party coverage that constitutes evidence of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not per the music guideline. Joe Chill (talk) 02:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely annoyed response. You should probably review the music notability guideline, which quite specifically mentions independent coverage in reliable sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A clear definition of the arguments for nomination is evasive. Perhaps another time, when Monsieur Joe has decided what the reasons for deletion actually are, rather than erroneous statements and WP:VAGUEWAVEing. It is bad enough when respondents quote rules without rationale. Anarchangel (talk) 09:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reason was I can't find significant coverage. I crossed out bootleg. I accidentally made a mistake. I always say a rationale. Since when is WP:MUSIC not a reason to nominate something for deletion? What I said wasn't vague. I said that what Michig said isn't in WP:MUSIC. You twisted everything that I said around. Joe Chill (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Michig said is in WP:MUSIC, and it reflects the GNG. If we're going be sticky about exact phrasing, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and the fact you (or any other user) "can't find significant coverage" shouldn't be given any weight in a deletion discussion, since the standard is that the coverage exist, not that it be locatable by any particular user. Yes, this comment is approaching the snarky boundary, but repeatedly wikilawyering users who disagree with your reading or application of guidelines much more closely approaches the uncivil. It's more like Rep. Wilson's howling "You lie!" than it's ike reasoned discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It needs multiple sources. Joe Chill (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. Joe Chill (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you have had explained to you before the criterion that you just quoted is from the section on musicians and ensembles, not the section on albums.--Michig (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything needs multiple sources. Joe Chill (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found another review from from a different Allmusic reviewer ([7]).--Michig (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for crossing out bootleg. Anarchangel (talk) 22:15, 28 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. JForget 00:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Was restored based on this link showing his first pro league apparence thus meeting WP:ATHLETE --JForget 15:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Cox (footballer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Contested PROD. Footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played in a fully-pro league/cup yet - has only been named on the subs bench without taking to the field. --Jimbo^[online] 17:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Recreate if he makes an appearance. Spiderone 17:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and recreate if he makes an appearance if he gets used. Five games on the bench isn't very promising know. Govvy (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail WP:ATHLETE (no evidence he has ever played in a fully-pro league); also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:59, 30 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 hoax. ... discospinster _talk 01:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Palmer (actress)[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Article lacks references and there are no GHits or GNEWS to support claims. No evidence can be found to support Filmography. No IMDB entry. Suspect hoax. ttonyb (talk) 16:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Hoax-ish. Like nominator said, no IMDb page, or any type of mention in IMDb listings for her credits that I looked up. Furthermore, the article claims Palmer was nominated for a "Young Artist Award" in 2006, but the YAA page does not list her as a nominee and the role she was supposedly nominated for was as a background dancer, which makes little sense. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 18:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Doubtless a hoax. There is a person by that name on IMDB, but it is a male actor and a different person. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Looks like a hoax to me too. Billbowery (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Seems to be a hoax.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:01, 27 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. JForget 00:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James McPike[edit]

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

Player fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played in a fully-professional league/cup. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant thrid party media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 16:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I don't agree with the original PROD removal. He has had nothing but trivial mentions and the run of the mill squad profiles. Spiderone 16:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - subject meets the GNG. Articles such as [8], [9], [10], and [11] are RS stories specifically about Mr. McPike, not his team. This is not the totality of coverage, but should be sufficient to establish notability - all four of these articles represent "significant coverage" and only such stories are required. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I mean Birmingham Mail is a local newspaper and they are likely to write articles on a lot of non-notable local sportspeople. Like my local paper, for example, writes detailed articles on tennis players who are 14-15. Spiderone 07:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus that local papers are insufficient to establish notability. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has his only full appearance was in the Conference National (which, due to the inclusion of teams like Histon F.C. and Hayes and Yeading F.C., isn't a full-time professional league), he hasn't fulfilled Wp:ATHLETE. (Note: for a case of a player in a similar position, see Wp:Articles for deletion/Kevin Scriven (2nd nomination).) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: failure to meet ATHLETE is not an automatic disqualifier. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE. Also fails WP:GNG; of the four pieces Thaddeus has provided to "prove" notability, the first three all refer to one event (receiving a £30,000 car from another player) and the last one is a run-of-the-mill transfer piece, which fails WP:NTEMP. Not enough to prove notability - not by a long shot! Giant Snowman 15:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:Athlete which is enough consensus for me. Local notability isn't sufficient; local papers that indicate only local notability isn't sufficient. Shadowjams (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:58, 30 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. JForget 00:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Meliksetyan[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE as the Armenian league isn't a fully professional league. Lack of coverage to pass WP:GNG.

Articles that link here (I will strike those that no longer fail):

Arthur Petrosyan (footballer born 1983)
Tigran Grigoryan
Tsolak Beglaryan
Artashes Kaghvantsyan
Mkrtich Nalbandyan
Norayr Abrahamyan
Karen Zakaryan
Martun Hakobyan
Gor Martirosyan

Spiderone 16:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 16:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - appear to fail WP:ATHLETE (no evidence they have ever played in a fully-pro league); also fail WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:59, 30 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) 10:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Research Center for Women & Families[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/National Research Center for Women & Families

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was origionaly created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to National Research Center. Was recently undeleted as a contested prod, by another newly created sock puppet of Scmd, and now the article is being "maintained" by this account.

*This is one Part of a long history of Spam, promotion and abuse on Wikipedia by National Research Center, see also -Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2009_Archive_Sep_2#National_Research_Center_for_Women_.26_Families_citation_spamming

Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. Utilizing sock puppets to circumvent blocks in order to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and Blatant advertising, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt - for blatant violations of wikipolicies as per Hu12. Eddie.willers (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at Google [12] and Google News Archives [13] and Google Books [14], I don't see a single source that gives substantial, in-detail coverage of the organization as a whole, but I do see many, many references to the group that, taken as a whole, show that it's an influential organization. Sources such as The Washington Post, [15] [16] USA Today (where the organization has its own page in the newspaper's online archives [17]), and the Associated Press (most recent [18]) all seem to respect this organization. If there weren't so much of it, I'd favor deleting, but as WP:ORG states: If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. In a practical, common-sense level, it's good for readers to be able to find an article about a group that gets quoted advocating or commenting in the media so much. JohnWBarber (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A little offtopic. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 21:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment whether being quoted in news articles makes for notability has been a general question, most commonly with BLPs for consultants--if they are quoted by major newspapers, are they notable ? If they are very widely quoted perhaps, but it would In my opinion, I discount statements in the newspaper that "x is an authority." -- they're often meaningless puffery for whoever was willing to talk to the reporter. DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, DC-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. While the organisation has been quoted widely, I haven't yet found sufficient articles about it in independent reliable sources to justify an article. Even in the odd article that mentions it rather than merely quoting it, the coverage is trivial, as here [19]. 'Weak' because it's not obviously non-notable - reliable sources could, perhaps, yet be found. Robofish (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are serious notability concerns, and the spamming behaviour puts this over the line. Them From Space 18:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, Cleanup. The article recently had several citations added, and it seems to be presented in a comprehensive manner. Onopearls ^(t/c) 03:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Djibril Paye[edit]

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

The Moldovan league isn't professional and there is insufficient coverage to pass WP:GNG. Articles grouped into this:

Spiderone 16:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 16:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - appear to fail WP:ATHLETE (no evidence they have ever played in a fully-pro league); also fail WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:58, 30 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. JForget 00:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Yunlong[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No proof he has played and he plays below the level required to pass WP:ATHLETE Spiderone 16:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 16:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail WP:ATHLETE (no evidence he has ever played in a fully-pro league); also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reliable sources providing significant coverage for this athlete, and he's only played in the lower levels of his country's football leagues. Jogurney (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:58, 30 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. JForget 00:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garrett Baker[edit]

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

Seems to have so small of a role in Firestorm. Not really worthy of his own article??? BrianY (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article itself seems to indicate that the charater is non-notable. Hairhorn (talk) 16:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. A wiki article on a character who does nothing more than pat another character on the back? I don't think so. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 18:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to a list at the most--this is a conceivable but dubious bit of content for an article perhaps, but certainly not an individual article. As the book in The Caretaker Trilogy is quite notable, what is needed is people to write a better article about it than the probably copypaste from what looks like a publisher's description, and then start on the major characters perhaps--not details like this. DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 27 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. Procedural nom, no arguments for deletion, original prodder no longer advocating deletion. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Literary Theory[edit]

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

This is a procedural nomination. This article was previously deleted after having been prodded. I requested it to be undeleted after additional sources were uncovered (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals#J. Lit. Th.). The inclusion on the Danish and Australian list appears to satisfy criterion #1 of WP:Notability (Academic Journals). As the article was previously deleted, I thought it would be appropriate to bring it to AfD and will abstain from !voting myself. Crusio (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The two given sources are verifiable and reliable.Rirunmot (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The Australian list is simply a list of all active peer-reviewed journals that might be of some relevance in the academic world, to which ratings have been added. The rating there is 3rd out of 4 classes A*, A, B, C. The list in the humanities is essentially prepared on the basis of reputation, and has not been validated. Still, it does show that the academics preparing the list have know of it, and don't consider it worthless. (The Danish one is similar, though they have not yet done the rankings--it shows they consider it worth including). It only started in 2007, and there are not many library holdings recorded yet, and only AcademicOneFile and IBZ, the main German indexing service includes it. That both the Australian and the Danish academics think it already worth including is an indication of notability. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I prodded this originally; I'm neutral now. It seems like it might just about creep into being notable. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. --Crusio (talk) 06:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The sourcing is pretty minimal, but it will in the not-too-distant future include multiple independent assessments of the journal's quality, and I don't think we can expect more than that for most journals. I wouldn't be particularly upset if this were deleted (I don't see it as a particularly important journal in academia, nor for the purposes of sourcing other Wikipedia articles) but I don't want to set a precedent by deleting it that would apply to other more important journals as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:32, 30 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. JForget 00:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man (film series)[edit]

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

This article is just one big copy/paste of the Iron Man (film) article. The only salvageable part is the tiny "Iron Man 2" section haphazardly placed in between copied sections. The rest is copied and therefore has attribution problems under GFDL. Atlan (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as GFDL violation.--Ygosons (talk) 15:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment GFDL expressly allows people to copy content from material released under the GFDL. So while this article might not be appropriate for Wikipedia, it's not a GFDL violation. ƒ(Δ)² 16:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Is it really not possible to fix the GFDL issue with something like ((Copied))? It seems like this should be somehow fixable without deletion. (No opinion about this article; just curious about the issue.)--Chris Johnson (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- GFDL allows things to be copied with attribution. The attribution is in the page history, which wasn't copied along with the text. Besides that, what's the point of having 2 identical articles?--Atlan (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, the page creator should have used an edit summary like that in WP:SPLIT. The discussion at WT:Splitting suggests that a dummy edit with the right summary would be sufficient to fix that mistake and bring the article into compliance with the license. As for what the point is, it would be reasonable to take the Iron Man (film) article as a starting point and edit it down to a shorter summary for the film series article. Some information or sections may need to be shuffled between the film and film series articles. I'm not saying it's necessarily appropriate here, but cloning an article as a starting point for a related article can make sense.--Chris Johnson (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I am talking about what is appropriate here. This is not a debate on how to properly copy articles. You can only have a "series" article if there's more than one movie to talk about. Right now, there's only one small section on Iron Man 2 in between the huge sections of Iron Man one. It's a pointless duplicate article.--Atlan (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I totally agree that the article is pointless and redundant in its current state. It needs substantial cleanup, pruning, and expansion to be useful. However, if someone did that, it looks like the attribution problem created by the 8th edit could be fixed. That's all I was trying to determine.--Chris Johnson (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe my nom statement focused too much on the attribution part of the article. The real problem is that this article serves no purpose as it is right now. There's no reason to keep the article, because everything can be found in the Iron Man (film) article.--Atlan (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

they are not idenacal. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 17:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything but the Iron Man 2 section is copied from Iron Man (film). That's identical enough for me.--Atlan (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it should be dealeted, there may be a way to save it.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 19:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you said how.--Atlan (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as chris jonson said before clean up copy edit, that kind of things. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and stub as a new stub, with proper copyfrom notices and the intro paragraphs of the two articles correctly replicated here, with summary from notices on the talk page... 76.66.197.30 (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This artical can be saved with some work. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 20:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want to keep? The article is a copy of another article. You can just as easily start over when there's more to write about.--Atlan (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's redirectd untill there is more info. --Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 18:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per concerns raised by Atlan. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fundamentally, copying large chunks of text from the article on the first film is not the way to start this article regardless of whether the attribution problems can be fixed. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and maybe create a disambig, stub or redirect. GDFL vio. Abductive (reasoning) 19:52, 29 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. this does not preclude merging or moving as required by editorial consensus. Sandstein 06:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoliterature[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:02, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a lot of hits on Google web search, google news and google books.--Patton123 (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Term might be notable and I was leaning towards keep or merge, but I don't see anything worth building on in the article. If someone wants to work up something that has sources and isn't OR then I'm all for it. Let me know if you need any help. I think the topic might best be covered with a section in a broader article subject like ecology or environmentalism. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article may be better as a stub, as it seems a poster-child of stubness. The subject matter is not well-covered elsewhere in the aggregate and the article does need to be enlarged and fleshed out with examples (Silent Spring, anyone?), however it seems a good start for a subject currently being culturally fast-tracked by publishers, booksellers, and libraries, at least in the U.S.. I vote to change its status to stub rather than to delete it. Sctechlaw (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Environmental literature which seems to be a very common term Shii (tock) 19:58, 20 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 14:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, perhaps, with Nature writing. Neither article is very complete. Thoreau, Muir, Dickenson, O'Neill, Eliot, et al would all fit. Ecocriticism is more fairly fleshed out and may provide a good merge candidate too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sctechlaw (talk • contribs)
Keep. Currently a weak article, needs more substance presumable available in the references. Merging might be a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AllMyNotes Organizer[edit]

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

Contested speedy and PROD. Another article similar to this one was already speedied as G11, but the author seems intent on keeping this one. ArcAngel (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

26Sept, User:Frytskyy: I'm doing my best to make it look as trualy neutral. If you can, please help, if something needs correction, you are very welcome to edit is as you like, rather then mark this page as ready for deletion. Please be constructive. I really don't see difference of this article and these two articles that appear to be ok - Evernote and reQall. Please review this article, I sincerely hope that now it should not be an object to deletion after my recent changes. Also please not that this software is really new, it was released for testing Beta only yesterday, please allow some time to more refferences appear to it, I'm working on it really hard.
Speedy delete per A7 as neutrality is a moot point where no notability has been established, and creator's explanation above make it rather unlikely this is notable at the moment. Besides, I just blocked his account as spam-only and speedied the article about the softwre company. Daniel Case (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable app and spam. Laurent (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as non-notable app and spam. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete No evidence of notability (A7). Steven Walling 19:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete because A7 is inapplicable to software. Nonetheless, while WP:GHITS is not a particularly strong argument, having a grand total of 4 non-WP ghits is a bit...too much. Fails WP:N. Tim Song (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Again the strict interpretation of CSD fails in the case of an obvious delete. Lack of sources and the initial reaction are enough for delete. Shadowjams (talk) 08:53, 29 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. No reason to delete here... Tone 17:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of largest empires[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

subject to vandalism 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 13:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Subject to vandalism is not a valid criteria for deletion. All of our articles are subject to vandalism and many have been vandalized to a much greater extent than this article. L0b0t (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per L0b0t. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep An article that is subject to vandalism does not make it warrented to delete. Page protection maybe... Further if the intention is to merge the article then that discussion belongs there on the page where it has already begun. The grounds for deletion of this article are not established. It is notable and well sourced. I am concerned over the purpose of this nomination and if a valid reason isnt supplied by the nominater i think the discussion should be closedOttawa4ever (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*delete, aside from POV/missing soureces/vandalism issues the article is mostly redundant to the the clearly superior and appropriately sourced list of largest empires--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the deletion discussion here is on the article List of largest empires which does have citations and references. Are you sure your votiing delete? Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noting me, i hate the AFD structure and the template was linking to nowhere, the one i wanted to suggest was for deletion was List of major empires instead. The [list of largest empires]] has a imho a POv-problem with some IP editors as well, but the overall article is well sourced and one misbehaving editor does not justify the deletion of the article.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:00, 26 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 keep. Per WP:SNOW and longstanding precedent. Merging may be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Camponotus saundersi[edit]

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

Not very notable. "Defenses" section might be merged into exploding animal otherwise delete and in any case redirect Camponotus saundersi to Carpenter ant or Exploding animal. 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 13:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Exploding animal. Multiple searches show that the ant is only notable for its defensive mechanism, which can be adequately covered in the Exploding animal article. ƒ(Δ)² 15:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Srong Keep: All species are notable. Joe Chill (talk) 18:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "only notable for it's defence mechanism" it may be. But its defence mechanism is possibly unique. pablo_hablo. 18:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note this AfD has been canvassed at the article rescue squadron (and not in the usual way). Verbal chat 19:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not canvassing. By the way, I posted this at the Arthropods Wikiproject and you didn't complain about that. Joe Chill (talk) 20:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't have been posted at the ARS in the way it was, but there is some excuse for it--it was In my opinion essentially a matter of surprise, not canvassing, for is a deletion proposal for one of the most standard, well accepted, and numerous classes of articles in Wikipedia! DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, speedy close now editors are claiming entire species are not notable? Absurd. Isn't there a some kind of notability policy which states all species are notable? 9 google news hits, including Deseret News, Daily Star. 18 google books including several text books. 13 scholarly hits.
Wikipedia:Inherent_notability#Items_with_de_facto_notability (Essay) Items with de facto notability: Animals

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Atlantic_jackknife_clam, in which the closing admin states "All species are notable" which is not yet enough to close this absurd AFD, but helps.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dani_gecko several editors in this AFD state that "classified species [are] inherently notable", although article deleted as a hoax.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acheilognathus koreensis "As a documented species, I believe this is inherently notable" closed speedy keep.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interatherium "Species are generally considered inherently notable and therefore are not generally required to assert notability." closed speedy keep.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pale-legged Warbler "Much discussion has concluded that species are inherently notable"

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Scaly-footed_Water_Rat same inherently notable argument given by Ten Pound Hammer in this AFD.

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roger_Clinton,_Sr. "all species have been found in AFDs to be inherently notable" User:Edison

WP:NBIO which failed to attain consensus states: "All species of animal, plant, fungus, and microorganisms (including bacteria, viruses, and protozoa) are notable."

Ikip (talk) 19:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument is based on others opinions and a failed policy? Please create this policy if you wish, but more reasoned argument that doesn't depend on failed policy might help.Verbal chat 20:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No my arguments is based on:

common sense,
an essay which states what is "de facto notability",
previous AfDs in which other editors supported my position, and
the several text books that list this species above.

Your statment reminds me of WP:ONLYESSAY which is part of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions:

Wikipedia is not a system of laws. Deletion processes are discussions, not votes, and we encourage people to put forward their opinions. Sometimes, they will find an existing project page which sums up their reasoning already, and rather than reinventing the wheel they will link to it (with a suitable explanation of why it applies). If someone links to an essay or guideline, they are not suggesting "WP:EXAMPLE says we should do this", but rather "I believe we should do this, WP:EXAMPLE explains the reasons why".

My position is much stronger than the one word some editors have posted. Ikip (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verbal, try deleting the many species articles that there are here. It will never work. All species being notable is like all high schools being notable and major radio stations being notable. All three only go by community consensus. Joe Chill (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge etc. per the square of the f applied to delta above. Verbal chat 19:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep all species are inherently notable. We aren't talking about a garage band or minor athlete here, we are talking about an entire species of living creatures. If we decide an entire species is not notable, while of course saying any minor celebrity that has two RS stories is, than we have lost all touch with what an encyclopedia is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A group of species rather than a single species from what I've read, and it appears that not all species in the group do the exploding ant trick ([20]), but this surely belongs in an encyclopedia. I believe all species are considered "notable". If this is to be merged anywhere it should be to Carpenter ant, but such a merge discussion should really proceed per the steps described in Wikipedia:Merging, not via AFD.--Michig (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an encyclopedia! You don't leave out species simply because no one has gotten around to writing about them yet. Dream Focus 20:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed, all species are notable. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 20:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment despite recent calls for me to withdraw this nomination I am not. This article needs to be deleted or merged into exploding animal unless that page gets deleted (which it sshould) instantly. --3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 20:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't know how Wikipedia works per all of the messages that people left on your talk page from inclusionists and deletionists alike. This article will not be deleted. Joe Chill (talk) 21:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am at a complete loss to. I simply don't understand. Ikip (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Carpenter ant would be a far better merge location than Exploding animal. pablo_hablo. 22:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: After many of his AFDs closing with a result of merging to exploding animal and him saying that it is an option that he would be fine with in this AFD, he nominated Exploding animal for deletion. Joe Chill (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- pablo_hablo. 21:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Speedy keep actually, despite the unaccountable failure of the nom to withdraw. DGG ( talk ) 22:31, 26 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 with exploding animal. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. NAC. Tim Song (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding toad[edit]

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

wp:notnews maybe merge into exploding animal otherwise delete. 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 13:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Exploding animal. It seems the right place for the information to stay without too much proliferation of articles. --Cyclopia (talk) 14:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge withdraw in favor of merge to Exploding animal which will happen in 5 minutes.

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raptor Education Group[edit]

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

Unnotable organization. Article create as blatant plagarism from the group's website, was speedied, but others demanded it be restored claiming plagarism isn't WP:COPYVIO.[21] Article partially cleaned up, but still pretty much nothing but promo statements sourced by Raptor itself and a repeat of its own website mission statement (again). Bulk of the few Google News hits are all for a local radio station and television station, showing no notability outside of its own area. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I have no strong opinion either way on the notability, and I commented on my talk page (linked above) that I wouldn't nominate this for AfD myself if the plagiarism were cleaned up. That being said, I don't think the encyclopedia will lose anything if this is deleted or turned to a stub. As Collectonian says, both times the article was created it contained large chunks of text copied-and-pasted from http://www.raptoreducationgroup.org/What_REGI_Is.cfm (one time this was even done by an admin with two FA credits, which I find quite sobering), and the first time it actually contained the entire text of the page. So long story short, I don't care whether or not Wikipedia has an article about the Raptor Education Group, but I do care whether Wikipedia has plagiarism in it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I dispute the assertion that the subject has no notability outside its own area. My search of Google News archives (all dates) shows coverage of the organization's work in the largest state paper and from as far away as the Miami Herald and The Guardian (UK). The state governor told a story about their work in his State of State address in 2004,[22] which we can put down as another data point of significant coverage in a secondary source. Furthermore, the way that sources write about the group's work indicates that the group is regarded as experts in their field.
Regarding the allegations of plagiarism, followed by allegations that people think plagiarism is OK: Text that is attributed to others is a quote, not plagiarism. Text that cannot be reworded without changing its meaning is not plagiarism or copyvio. A quote of an organization's mission statement in an article about the organization is, in my opinion, appropriate fair use.
Oh, and another thing: Nobody "demanded" that the article be restored.[23] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't just about the mission statement, Clayoquot. As I have said over and over again, there were full sentences (or, in the earlier-deleted version, full paragraphs) copied directly from the website—not just the bulleted list in the mission statement. They were not attributed (there were no footnotes), and even if they were, they need to be put in quotation marks if the exact wording is going to be used. Please read WP:Plagiarism for more information about what constitutes plagiarism. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am aware of the need to use quotation marks and attribution, as I told you yesterday.[24] If an article can be salvaged by adding punctuation and a few words, we should add the punctuation and the few words, not delete the article. Furthermore I don't think you're getting the point that if there is only one accurate way to say something, it is not plagiarism to say it that way. In your good-faith effort to change wording to avoid plagiarism,[25] you removed factual information and changed a word to a different one that has a different meaning, as I explained in my edit summary here.[26] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's not necessary to report every single miniscule fact. The fact that they "hold permits from state X to do Y" is not important, all you need in an article is to say what they actually do. It's the drive to regurgitate every single fact in every single source that leads to plagiarism. And for what it's worth, just changing a few words around in a sentence doesn't necessarily correct plagiarism; in a case this bad it's often necessary to restart from scratch, without using copyrighted text as the scaffolding. This is why I was frustrated when, after I had said "recreate the article without copyvio, or as a stub", User:Sj seemed to think it appropriate to repost a bunch of blatant copyvio. (Again, I don't care how necessary the wording is: copying that wording with no quotes and no attribution is copyvio.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, regarding the sources...again, I have no strong opinion either way, but I should point out that the Guardian article you link appears to be no more than a passing mention (and is more about an incident they were involved in, rather than about REG itself), and the governor's speech is essentially the same. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 19:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

_{Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds has been notified of this AfD. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep. The organisation was responsible for rehabilitating the bird which was the centrepiece of the guardian article, pretty similar to this other article too. Presuming there are other similar, they are enough to satisfy notability for me :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it houses 150 birds at any one time and has had as many as 13 Bald Eagles, it is similar it scale to a small zoo, and probably has more Bald Eagles than most zoos. The article may need a clean-up, but I think it should be kept. Snowman (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a non-profit group is notable enough for its activity to achieve coverage in international press (the Guardian), it should be notable enough for Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seems to be two reasons offered to delete this page: notability and plagiarism. In my opinion neither claim has merit. With regard to plagiarism you have to look at what content is on the page today, what text it had in previous versions seems irrelevant. The text today seems to be within Wikipedia and fair use guidelines and is adequately referenced. With regard to notability, in addition to the coverage of their rehabilitation work mentioned above by local, state and international press and a governor's speech there is also the article "Miracle' sandhill crane survives after arrow shot" that ran in the San Jose Mercury News - Mar 31, 2009 as well as in Forbes, and in the San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/n/a/2009/03/31/national/a174609D79.DTL&o=1) which also includes a picture - not a passing reference here. Also in regard to notability, that the founder of the organization is an expert in the field also seems beyond question - international educator, past president of IWRC, previous work covered in the Los Angeles Times (4+ articles from 1989 to 1990) and is a private individual licensed to hold the national bird of the United States in captivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mckennagene (talk • contribs) 08:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Naoko Takeuchi. JForget 00:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love Witch[edit]

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

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. Prod removed by User:Malkinann with note of "Takeuchi's works are studied, per WP:BK#5"; same as with PQ Angels, Takeuchi is not "historically significant", she seems more of a one-hit wonder with some notabiltiy. However, the notability of Takeuchi and Sailor Moon do not confer instant notability to all of her other works. This is another short work that was dropped before completion, is unlicensed, and has achieved no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete rehashing my argument from PQ Angels. While Naoko Takeuchi is well known for her work on Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon, it is the only thing she is known for and is not "historically significant". To be "historically significant", one needs a large body of highly notable work which is regularly a subject of academic study instead of one highly successful work. This disqualifies the subject for criterion #5. —Farix (t | c) 18:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Naoko Takeuchi, there is already a short summary on her wiki article page. - Knowledgekid87 15:39, 1 October 2009 (AT)
Redirect per Knowledgekid87, it seems like a reasonable compromise and since a summary is already there a merge isn't necessary. -- Atama頭 20:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nomination appears to be based on the mistaken assumption that the import of text from public domain sources is bad practice (it is not; see Category:Attribution templates). No other reason for deletion is provided. Sandstein 07:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas McNamara Russell[edit]

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

The whole content of the article was copied and pasted verbatim from an unnamed book by one J. K. Laughton that, according to the original edit summary, was published in 1897. On the face of it, this could mean that the text is in the public domain. Whether a copy and paste of the text constitutes a breach of WP:COPYVIO is one matter but it may still amount to plagiarism, especially as the article does not acknowledge its source. In any event, the article has not been "written" in the original editor's own words and the subsequent minor "tweaks" by later editors do not disguise this. To my mind, it is a blatant breach of WP:MOS which defies the spirit of the site in that editors should create articles using their own words but based on verifiable information. Copy and paste is a cheap and dishonest means of acquiring credit for creation of an article. This editor has done the same thing umpteen times over, sometimes using Laughton's work and sometimes using a book by one G. C. Boase, also apparently published in 1897. I admit I am by no means certain of the rules that should apply here and this nomination is placed effectively as a "test case" which I hope will generate a meaningful discussion through which we can determine how to deal with copy and paste edits on this scale. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not sure why you call the editor's addition of this article "plagiarism" given that he did acknowledge the original author in their edit summary. We still need better identification of the source from which this text came, but it does not appear that they were claiming to have written the original text. Please note, by comparison, that Wikipedia has incorporated large parts of the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica because it is in the public domain. Such public domain works are typically not suitable to be incorporated wholesale as articles into Wikipedia due to the need to update the content and/or writing style, but that is a reason to improve the articles, not to request their deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's from page 481 of the 1897 Dictionary of National Biography, and the template for it is ((DNB)). Uncle G (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject appears to be notable. Needs to be stubbed because of plagiarism. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not copyvio, but plagiarism, unless the exact part taken is marked. Johnny, we do not stubbify for plagiarism, as we do for copyvio. But it undoubtedly needs to be updated in view of probable later work--In my opinion, the bios is the old DNB hold up better than the old EB articles--perhaps because they are written in a more straightforward and less literary style than the old EB, but I doubt there's anything there which could not be improved by revision. the later career at least needs some expansion. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 28 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. JForget 00:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hou Yu[edit]

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

Contested PROD. He appears to fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Spiderone 12:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 12:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any reliable sources for the subject and at best he is playing in a lower-tier league which is not likely to be fully-pro. Jogurney (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail WP:ATHLETE (no evidence he has ever played in a fully-pro league); also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:58, 30 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. JForget 00:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CHINICT[edit]

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

This is a spam article created by a single-purpose editor who has resisted all attempts by other editors to tone it down. The article is simply an advertisment for the conference, which costs 1,500 euros to attend. It should be deleted. Simple Bob (talk) 12:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources cited do not suggest notability. The English sources available through standard searches do not demonstrate notability. Given the large number of companies whose business is conducted in English that attend / sponsor the conference, it is inconceivable that were this conference actually notable it would not have significant coverage in English language sources. ^Bongo_matic 12:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree. I had hoped that the editor who wrote it would be able to make this a more suitable topic, but they seem unable or unwilling to do so. I don't see any evidence of notability either; a long list of YouTube 'references' that is claimed to prove major companies 'supporting' the outfit is nothing but video of guest speakers at the conference. Drmies (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the accompanying category, which was applied to tens of articles, has been approved for deletion. --Simple Bob (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors have raised some alleged issues regarding the article I originally wrote about the CHINICT conference and, have requested its deletion. For the sake of clarity, in the rest of this document, I will refer to these editors as "the editors".

The goal of this document is to show that these alleged issues are mostly unsubstantiated and therefore, should not be used as a basis to request the deletion of the CHINICT article.

1. Alleged issue of "spam article" and "single-purpose editor".

The editors have claimed that the CHINICT article was "spam" written by a "single-purpose editor".

However, "the editors" have failed to provide any substantiated elements that would allow them to qualify the CHINICT article as "spam" or demonstrate it was written by a "single-purpose editor" - for whatever this last expression might mean.

2. Alleged issue regarding the "unsuitable tone" of the article.

The tone of the CHINICT article is meant to be neutral and informative.

"The editors" have failed to explain why the tone of the article was - in their opinion - "unsuitable" or why it should be "toned down". Here are a few examples of the misleading and/or unfounded arguments "the editors" have used to justify the alleged "unsuitable tone" of the CHINICT article.

Example # 1: "The editors" have criticized the fact that the CHINICT article mentions the list of the companies supporting the CHINICT conference. However, as clearly explained in the article, the CHINICT conference showcases a business and societal phenomenon whose main players include the companies supporting the CHINICT conference. The mentioning of such companies is therefore essential to the global understanding of the article. This is the reason why such companies are mentioned in the CHINICT article. "The editors" have also claimed that it seemed unclear such companies were supporting the CHINICT conference. A brief look at the reference # 5 of the CHINICT article (stressing Microsoft support of the CHINICT conference) or at the following video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7E_ljBy_cQ ("the editors" have chosen to remove from the external links of the CHINICT article) will prove otherwise.

Example # 2: The CHINICT article has been criticized for presenting a gallery of pictures, because, according to "the editors": "such a short article does not justify such a big gallery of smiling people handing each other awards". This statement is unsubstantiated for 2 reasons. First, there is no written or unwritten rules on Wikipedia stating that a pictures gallery requires an article of a specific size. Second, there is no place on Wikipedia stating that it is forbidden to show pictures of "smiling people handing each other awards" (by the way, only one picture out of 6 was showing "smiling people handing each other awards"). Without further elaboration on the vacuity of this statement, the goal of a small gallery of 6 pictures (that "the editors" have actually removed) was to bring a vivid complement of information to the topic of the article. By the way, gallery of pictures are commonly used on Wikipedia for articles dealing with similar topics - such as the Wikipedia article on the TED conference.

Example # 3: "The editors" have chosen to remove most of the external links under the pretense that they contributed to the promotion of the CHINICT conference. Wrong again. These links were actually providing a valuable complement of information to the CHINICT article thanks to the CHINICT Videos Channel and some unbiased websites (in Chinese) dedicated to the phenomenon of "chinization" and the CHINICT conference.

3. Alleged issue regarding ignoring editing remarks made by "the editors".

Despite what has been said by "the editors", most of the few semantic and grammar issues mentioned by "the editors" have been taken into account - more than once (see the documented corrections in the history of the CHINICT article as well as on the discussion board).

4. Alleged issue regarding the cost of the conference.

First, the cost of the CHINICT conference is not mentioned in the CHINICT article - since this article is not meant to promote the conference.

Second, the fact that the CHINICT article mostly deals with a paid conference does not make the article an advertisement of the conference - nor is a motive to disqualify the article to be featured on Wikipedia.

As a matter of facts, many articles on Wikipedia are about paid conferences - which are most of the time less notable than the CHINICT conference.

5. Alleged issue regarding the notability of the conference.

This last alleged issue should probably be the most significant while considering deletion of the CHINICT article.

"The editors" wrongly assumed that the companies mentioned in the CHINICT article conduct their business in English. Therefore, in "the editors' " opinions, should the CHINICT conference be "truly" notable, the sources in English language should be more abundant than the ones mentioned in the CHINICT article and beyond.

This major claim from "the editors" is unsubstantiated and misleading.

Indeed, as it is clearly stated in the CHINICT article, the CHINICT conference takes place in China and features mostly Chinese companies and China-based multinational companies that - obviously - conduct most of their business in Mandarin and not in English. This explains why many high profile sources provided as references in the CHINICT article are in Chinese. This also explains the abundant information - available in Chinese - on the Internet and beyond, whenever the CHINICT conference is referred to.

As a consequence, the notability of the CHINICT conference has been established - way beyond the reputable Western publications and video testimonials mentioned in the CHINICT article (that "the editors" have nonetheless kept on disqualifying, arguing that some of them were presented through YouTube...).

Indeed, in the CHINICT article, the notability of the CHINICT conference has also been established through unbiased sources from major Chinese publications and media groups with extensive coverage on Wikipedia - such as Xinhua News Agency, Sina Corporation, People's Daily, Tencent, Netease. For years, such Chinese high profile media have been publishing on-going extensive coverage on the CHINICT conference and on the phenomenon of "chinization" (see CHINICT article's references # 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, for example).

The ignorance of the Chinese language - by "the editors' " own admission - is no reason to disqualify the notability of the topic of the article. On Wikipedia, Chinese sources coming from respected and notable providers are not banned or considered unreliable because they are in Chinese or come from China. On the contrary, they are supposed to be as respected as their Western counterparts.

Failing to take into account the Chinese references is therefore highly prejudicial to establish the notability of the CHINICT conference and the relevance of the CHINICT article on Wikipedia.

Hopefully these explanations will clarify all doubts and set the tone for some productive collaborative work.

All the best, Franckn55 (talk) 11:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo: Can You Imagine?[edit]

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

This article has the same issues as the recently deleted article on its director, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boris Malagurski (see that page for details). It's presented as way more important than it actually is.

When you first look at it, you'll notice it cites articles from the Daily Telegraph and Human Rights Watch. But none of these sources mention the film or its director at all.

The article cites a brief statement by a journalist (Scott Taylor), which alone of course doesn't make the article notable, but which at least, along with other sources possibly could help establish notability. However, there is no source for the quote, and when I search for it, it's only mentioned on Wikipedia, Wikipedia mirrors, Stormfront ("SUPPORT SERBIA THREAD") and a blog.

Except an interview at a blog, the sources are not in English.

As far as the awards are concerned, it was established by the discussion concerning Boris Malagurski that they are not notable:

"BC Days Documentary Film Festival 2009" in Canada is just extremely obscure
"Winner, Silver Palm Award - Mexico International Film Festival 2009" may look impressive at first glance, if you don't know he was in fact one of 76 winners of that award, and only in the category "Student Films" along with 13 other student film makers[27]
The fact that the film was screened at a film festival in East Sarajevo doesn't indicate notability either. Urban XII (talk) 12:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. kedadial 13:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ondertitel (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 10:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom's concerns toward article style are best addressed by cleanup and not deletion. Though not all certainly, many of the sources used appear credible and would seem to meet WP:GNG and thus WP:NF... and it must be remembered that documentarry films rarely get the coverge of studio financed blockbusters, so notability is not dependent upon popularity. While the deletion of the article on the filmaker himself recieved input about its notability as a BLP, this is a different article and a different AfD about a different topic. The earlier AfD made repeated mention of the non-English sources. Per WP:CSB, non-English sources are allowble if translations are properly attributed. Article will now be going through some cleanup. I'll report back. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per MichaelQSchmidt. --Cinéma C 22:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Link [9] is non working, Link [10] roughly translates to the author notified us that he won an award at the Mexican International Film Festival and that his movie "Kosovo: Can You Imagine?" was proclaimed the best film at the Documentary Film Festival "BC Days". It also mentions that the movie made it into the final selection of the International Film Festival in Sarajevo. Link [11] contains a carbon copy of the information in Link [10]. --Radicale (talk) 20:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Ambassador's comment, the news coverage, and the awards, make it clearly notable. If you searched for its name in other languages, you'd surely find more mention of it. Dream Focus 04:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Reason[edit]

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

Prod disputed by article creator. Non-notable author, fails inclusion criteria listed at WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR L0b0t (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Prolific author who appears prominent in a particular genre. Accepting references on good faith.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Many of her books (including Quaker Cavalier) are still in print seventy years after they were first written. Christian booksellers have special shelves for her youth books. A library search shows that her books are in every major Canadian library system - I assume the same would be true in the UK. I think she's far from being non-notable, but her notability is in a field which isn't well known by the average Wikipedian. --NellieBly (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is disputing the subject's existence or the fact that subject is indeed an author. However, subject has insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. "Accepting references on good faith" is not something we should ever do, references must be checked, vetted, and verified. The article contains references but the vast majority are primary sources (the subject's published works). There has been no non-trivial 3rd party coverage of the subject presented. As such, the subject still fails all of our relevant inclusion criteria. L0b0t (talk) 12:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think that when an article is created by an established editor, as this one was, it is perfectly acceptable to accept in good faith the references provided, when they cannot be checked online. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I think I may have misunderstood you. Certainly, I did not mean to imply that the editor who presented the references did so in bad faith, only that our job here entails checking references (no matter who presents them). That is essentially what AfD is for no? We investigate and evaluate the presented references to see if they meet our editorial criteria. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 15:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that if libraries are still holding on to numerous copies of 70-year-old books - and my trip to the local library revealed that these books are still circulating regularly in three languages at that library alone - that their author is in my opinion notable simply because she's the writer of books that have stood the test of time. (Also, one 1951 book review I found in an old Winnipeg Free Press at the library claims that 10 million copies of her books had been sold by that time. To me that connotes notability no matter what she wrote.) Writers in this genre and of her age are very unlikely to have online fanbases or an online presence. Most importantly, there is nothing in the notability guidelines that says that sources have to be online - sources don't have to be available to every single reader with a click of the mouse; they just have to be out there. --NellieBly (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is claiming anything about sources being online. There is no such requirement here. There is a requirement that before someone gets an article in Wikipedia, they be subject multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. If that means going to the library to look at old newspapers on microfiche or check out old books, then that is what one who wants to keep the article must do. The fact that this person is an author that did exist is not in dispute but authorship of books, even a lot of books, does not equate to notability as defined by Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. L0b0t (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All the books, though published over 50 years ago, are still held in libraries. If appropriate newspapers of the period were widely available, there would be no problem finding reviews, either. WorldCat shows 95 works, including translations into Swedish, German , and French--such translations generally imply notability. Even so, I;'ve found one: Chicago Tribune, It's our systematic bias that this material is hard to find, and if were find some indication that a person before the online era would have sufficient coverage today, that's sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 28 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. JForget 00:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron King (English Footballer)[edit]

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

Contested PROD - no reason given, just "Edited to wikipedias satisfaction". Youth footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. --Jimbo^[online] 12:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable youth footballer Spiderone 12:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and Spiderone. Kosack (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fail WP:ATHLETE (no evidence he has ever played in a fully-pro league); also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, yet another non-notable youth team player. Won't see any on-field action for Liverpool for at least the next year or two unless a sudden injury crisis strikes down about 15 players. Recreate as and when he makes his pro debut -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete wait until there is notability.--Stormbay (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:58, 30 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. JForget 00:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abderahmane Selmi[edit]

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

Contested PROD. No assertion of notability made in the article. He has never played outside his semi-pro league. Spiderone 12:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 12:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail WP:ATHLETE (no evidence he has ever played in a fully-pro league); also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:57, 30 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. JForget 00:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aurimas Marcinkevičius[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Player hasn't played professionally Spiderone 12:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 12:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to fail WP:ATHLETE (no evidence he has ever played in a fully-pro league); also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any reliable sources providing significant coverage of this athlete, and he hasn't played in a fully-pro league. Jogurney (talk)
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:57, 30 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. JForget 00:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadush Danaj[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The Albanian Superliga is not fully-pro. Spiderone 08:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 08:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 10:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:57, 30 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. JForget 00:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tadas Markevičius[edit]

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

Despite the A Lyga page saying it's professional, we have no reason to believe that it is. It isn't listed here and most nearby leagues such as Latvia, Estonia and Finland are semi-pro. He also fails WP:GNG Spiderone 12:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 12:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any actual references/sources for not fully-professional? Renata (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find proof that it's professional on the internet but so far I've had no luck so I have no reason to believe the league is professional. Spiderone 07:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth out of my own memory (WP:OR and such), when Romania played them, they were criticized/humourised or something about having parallel jobs and implying or directly saying (I'm not sure about this) that most of the players there are amateurs. --Anime Addict AA (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears to fail WP:ATHLETE (no evidence he has ever played in a fully-pro league); also fails WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 15:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any reliable source which provide significant coverage of this athlete, and he hasn't played in a fully-pro league. Jogurney (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:57, 30 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 all. There is strong consensus and clear evidence that these are all blatant misinformation. I will also A9 the various album and single articles, and block the creator(s). ~ mazca ^talk 19:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Lashes[edit]

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

I can find no evidence for Polydor association on Google or Google news, only links for ""lady lashes" + polydor" are to myspace and facebook. No evidence of third-party coverage. Fails to meet notability guidelines. Beloved Freak 12:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~both~~ all clearly non-notable and fail WP:GNG by a long shot. --Jimbo^[online] 12:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added the related article Courtney Whittle to this debate. Marasmusine (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all There are also no ghits for other associations (like will.i.am) where links to this article have been added. Clubmarx (talk) 13:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Added the related article Heather Vesey to this AfD. E Wing (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Especially since the "references" provided refer to either Alexandra Burke's version of Hallelujah or The Saturdays. Also, any act whose official website is their MySpace page can't be considered notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, speedy if possible and block user. I'm right on the verge of doing so since these sorts of articles just keep on coming from this user. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all fails WP:GNG. -- Alexf^(talk) 02:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:89.242.167.160 is an obvious sock of the author. He/she continues to edit all the articles in question, not to mention performing questionable edits to existing articles. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, preferably speedy if possible. The name Heather Vesey has been added to articles such as Jade Ewen (as an associated act) and The X Factor (UK) (as a judge) so lots of vandalism going on. They also appear to be autobiographical articles judging by the edit histories. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also can the articles Upper Level (song), Upper Level, Reach & Touch (song) and Reach & Touch (Lady Lashes song) be added to the AFD? AnemoneProjectors (talk) 12:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And this too Get Up (Little Ronnie song). Clubmarx (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I speedied that one due to having no content. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Gotta Goo (song) and Gotta Goo (Lady Lashes song) have also been created. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 15:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And Gotta Goo. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 15:56, 28 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. JForget 00:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Girls (band)[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Though simple name is making finding sources particularly difficult. RadioFan (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not that hard really, google for "girls" and "album" and you'll find plenty. Examples: Pitchfork and Rolling Stone. /skagedal^talk 13:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tons of sources here. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Andrzejbanas. Gongshow ^⊕ 05:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Easily meets WP:MUSIC. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 14:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Artist meets WP:MUSIC criterion 1 with the reviews of their debut album from various reliable third party sources such as Rolling Stone, Pitchfork Media and The Guardian. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets all the criteria, plenty of reputable sources above. Part of the issue is that the researcher doesn't realize that "Girls" and "Album" are a bit generic.
Strong Keep This is one of the most buzzed-about Indie-rock albums of the year. Just read a big article in Spin Magazine that called their debut the best of the year [28]. The article can be expanded, for sure, but it's a no brainer. KEEP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdg46 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It should be noted that this group now meets WP:MUSIC criterion #2 ("Has had a charted single or album on any national music chart") as their debut album Album has debuted at #136 on the Billboard 200 album chart in the United States. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 18:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FA Premier League 2004-05 Season Review[edit]

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

Original research, redundant to 2004-05 FA Premier League. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 11:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 12:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, there is an existing article which covers this information in a better way. Giant Snowman 19:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would usually suggest redirect but I doubt anyone would search for this. Spiderone 19:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good lord, is the creator planning on writing that level of detail for all 380 matches? That's far far far too much detail, the existing article detailed above is more than sufficient - delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete , unreferenced original research New seeker (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Media[edit]

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

Apparently fails to meet the GNG or any specialized subguideline. The article has virtually no independent, reliable, verifiable sourcing - many of the links used as cites go to related corporate pages, to press releases, or to dead, unarchived pages. Most of the article seems to be original research about internal infighting at the company. Much of the text is speculative (eg, a long section called "Possible future legal dispute"). Given the general lack of valid sourcing and the discussion of disputes between living persons, the article seems to be riddled with BLP violations. I can't find enough salvageable content to create an article demonstrating notability, so deletion seems to be the only appropriate action. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

>Apparently fails to meet the GNG or any specialized subguideline.

Meets General Notability Guideline criteria as being one of the most successful independent fetish companies in the adult entertainment industry having an active publication history now over 10 years where nost of the product released does NOT involve explicit (penetration showing) adult content.

>many of the links used as cites go to related corporate pages

AVN.com and AINews are trade papers of the adult entertainment industry and are NOT part of the company and thus DO count as reliable secondary sources

>to press releases,

press releases must be verified in order to be included in external publications regardless of whether adult or mainstream

>or to dead, unarchived pages.

The pages were archived but as stated on the Internet Archive set, the current owner of the company has decided to block current access to the sites past pages.

>Most of the article seems to be original research about internal infighting at the company.

Most of the article is about the history of the company's operation. :The major conflict ownership of the Ivy Manor series was NOT infighting. That conflict determined a significant period of the history and ultimately the continuation of the company itself namely the conflict between Zak and Sinclaire which resulted in the end of the original company and the formation of the current company.

>Given the general lack of valid sourcing

You are dismissing AVN / AVNews and AInews as not valid. That is NOT a decision of fact. That is personal opinion. It is akin to negating one news source as invalid over another -- i.e, CBS News to be more valid than Fox News if Fox News were the source of the cite without verifying THE INFORMATION in the report itself is not valid. The INFORMATION in the wikipage is valid.

>and the discussion of disputes between living persons,

There are no "disputes between living persons". Zak died and Sinclaire wo:n the rights to the original company and restarted it under her management.

If you are referring to the debate between Sinclaire and Bardot over the Rubberella character, Bardot has not related to the general public her decision to stop playing a character that she was successful. Sinclaire did say the Rubberella was to continue. Both are statements of fact.

>I can't find enough salvageable content to create an article demonstrating notability

There is more than enough ACCURATE information regarding a very successful adult intertainment company that has existed and continues to operate.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lengthy article on porn studio that lacks evidence of notability.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notable pornographic awards won, no multiple nominations, and coverage relegated to industry sites (i.e., no mainstream press attention). Yes, I'm using the WP:PORNBIO criteria and this is a company, but the notability criteria for companies is annoyingly vague to me and what makes a pornographic actor notable, or non-notable, seems like a good measuring stick for the companies they work for. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 19:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per WP:N Billbowery (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

>*Delete. Lengthy article on porn studio that lacks evidence of notability.--JohnnyB256

Notabily is of successful adult entertain ment company that has lasted over 10 years despite NOT showing mundane penetration films akin to the bulk of the adult entertainment industry such as Wicked.

Also unlike other niche fetish film companies that currently exist including Marquis.de, Gwen Media has released over 120 films in its original company and now over 140 films in its current existence -- far exceeding most adult film companies' production library amounts.

>*Delete: No notable pornographic awards won, no multiple nominations,

False = as stated Gwen Media the company itself won AVN Award for Best BDSM film (Ivy Manor 5: Teacher's Pet) in 2003, and been nominated several more times for AVN Awards as well other awards.

Several of its performers have also won AVN Awards as well as other awards

>*Delete. As per WP:N

company meets said criteria listing as successful long lasting and massive production active film company

Comment I would request that the IP address who has been posting these responses please make an affirmative "keep" vote, once, and not respond repeatedly to delete votes. Opening a user account or logging in to one would be helpful. You can then explain about the penetration or whatever.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 10:46, 28 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 Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Robinson (environmentalist)[edit]

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

I think it just about fails the WP:GNG. Sorry this is my first AfD nom. I've probably made a mistake. Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 10:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is already referenced with this article and this article along with a note that he has been the subject of a documentary movie. This is enough to establish notability. But in addition, my own search found this Smithsonian article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Crap, how did I miss that? Sorry, I can't believe I never saw that. Please forgive me. I'll take more care in the future with reagrd to articles I AfD. Is there any way I can recall this? Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Reply - You can withdraw the nomination. You can (optionally) strike through your nomination and then place in bold text "Nomination withdrawn". -- Whpq (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply reply Just here, or at the AfD log, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 19:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You've done what is needed. An admin or experienced editor will close the AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good, good, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:09, 29 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. JForget 00:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saurabh barve[edit]

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

Insufficient notability. Very low Elo rating. The subject has not defeated a GM as wrongly indicated in the article, but only an IM, which is not notable. Being president of non-notable associations is not notable either. Oh, and before I forget, the article seems to have been written by the subject, which makes a strong WP:COI SyG (talk) 09:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. COI, notability, unsourced. Kevin (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. However much I enjoy creating chains like this to show that I am better than the World Champion and other grandmasters, the fact remains that beating a master is not as strong a claim to notability as being a master. A 2034 rating is a decent achievement, but games played at that level are not the kind which create wide interest in chess theory or media. Regarding the player profile references, neither establish notability. For example the 365chess website has a large database of tournaments from both amateur and professional events, and any player with games in that database get covered there, including weaklings like myself. It's a good resource, and of quite decent reliability, but entry there does not equate to notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a strong enough chess player to meet WP:N, and his other activities are not significant enough either.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for reasons given by everybody. A 2034 rating probably does not make one among even the top 100,000 players in the world, and thus is not even close to notable. Nor is writing a book, nor winning one game against a titled player. Krakatoa (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the others. Bubba73 (talk), 21:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the reasons everyone else has stated and also because there seems to be little or no media coverage at all involving this person. Grand Mattster 16:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. --MrsHudson (talk) 05:28, 29 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. JForget 00:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alsid Tafili[edit]

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

I disagree with the removal of the PROD. While the team is notable I don't think the player is. The only references I can find are trivial ones and it doesn't look like he's achieved anything notable. Spiderone 08:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 08:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Giant Snowman 10:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:56, 30 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. As persuasively explained by the later commentators, the "human biodiversity" referred to in the article appears to be a fringe neologism, or as DGG calls it, "an attempt to capture a common term for a fringe POV". This closure does not preclude an appropriate redirect, or an article about a different and better-sourced concept of "human biodiversity". Sandstein 07:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Human biodiversity[edit]

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

The main source of this article is blogs, no independent or scholarly research, no cite books from mainstream publishers. This is purely an internet theory. Not known outside blogosphere. Especially for a "scientific" theory. --Gary123 (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, that criticism seems a bit off. The blogs of which you speak are written by people with Wikipedia entries of their own.

That is not correct those are external links. The definition comes from halfsigma blog. Even for a pseudoscientific theory, lack of notability is shown that its main source has to come from a blog. --Gary123 (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No books from mainstream publishers? The Bell Curve is probably the most famous social science book of the 90s. 52 researchers in the field endorsed the book in a letter printed in the Wall Street Journal. http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/wsj_main.html

HBD may claim that book supports their movement, but neither the author, the book, or the wikipedia article refers to bell curve as part of the HBD movement or use the term HBD. We already have articles on race and intelligence etc, as well as the book used as the main source of this article. The question here is does the HBD movement deserve its own article. I would say no, since it is unknown outside the internet and thus has not even risen to the level of controversy. We have several articles on similar racialist science, the question here is purely over notability. --Gary123 (talk) 20:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a rename and rewrite seems to be in order .... something on gender differences, racial susceptibility to disease, etc should exist. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are several articles on that. This article is on a specific political movement, that has not even drawn controversy outside the internet. So it does not even qualify has pseudoscience worthy of notability. --Gary123 (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Maybe rename to "Human Biodiversity Theories". Every single one of us is an example of human biodiversity, but that is not the topic of the article. It's about policy issues that might be considered racist by some. The fact that this is an unpleasant topic to most of us is not a reason to delete the article.Borock (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if everything you say above is true that is still not a reason to keep an article about this particular theory. Being right is not enough - every crackpot tells us they are right. You need to produce some mainstream coverage of CBD to show us it isn't just another crackpot theory. Either that or get someone famous to condemn or endorse it and get it on the news then we will cover it.filceolaire (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of this article simply covers the article Race and Intelligence, from a HBD POV. And the rest of the article is simply a summary of Race, Evolution and Behavior, which already has an article. So all factual issues, and points of controversy are covered in other articles. The question is is the HBD movement notable enough to merit an article covering all these issues from a HBD POV? --Gary123 (talk) 20:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a new name, it is really about neoracism not human biological diversity.Borock (talk) 02:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: nominator knows nothing about the subject. Alfie Kohn has been writing about HBD theories since the late 1980s, although he has using the term "biodiversity" since 96/97. Ottre 09:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. Kohn is actually a critic of "biological determinism", which I don't think is quite the same thing as HBD. Ottre 10:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: gscholar gave 500+ hits, are any of these relevant? The arguments advanced in this discussion tend to be more related to moralizing and I was going to "vote" for delete but the existence of gscholar hits suggests the topic is notable and likely encydlopedic. This sounds as if it will be difficult to edit however as it has already attracted POV arguments. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands now is entirely about human biodiversity as a political movement, which complicates search results and other uses of the term human biodiversity. --Gary123 (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Human genetic variation. The article is it stands is an unsalvageable seemingly haphazard and in any case unbalanced selection of just a few from among many authors who have discussed biological differences within and among human groups, namely a selection confined to authors with a political agenda who have argued one way or another that social differences between groups of people can be explained by hereditary traits. The definition of the term in the article, instead of just referring to human biological variation without such political load, is a neologism that is largely confined to blogs; I have not been able to find instances of mainstream authors (including Alfie Kohn) using the term in this loaded sense. For the neutral mainstream use, see for example: Jonathan Marks (1995). Human Biodiversity: Genes, Race, and History. Aldine Transaction. ISBN 978-02-0202033-4. --Lambiam 22:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : I finally read the article and not sure what to think.Personally, I am still bothered by the way Watson was treated as it is scientifically important to defend conjecture which doesn't happen to be popular, and nature-versus-nurture is still a scientifically open question. I guess if the term is notable for this context and there is anything on "nature-versus-nurture" you could merge some of the stuff into that. A dab page may help if you can find two distinct notable concepts. Apparently the article cites David Duke who is presumably notable for fringe political activities rather than genetics of neurotransmitter-relevant metabolism and scientific skepticism. If the term is really this ambiguous, it probably should have its own page just for the sake of clarification and disambiguation. Again, the gscholar hits suggest the term is used in scientific works to some extent but parhaps it means something different to David Duke. I guess the dab pages tend to be rather terse lists but you could have a dab page with more text. For example, I added some text to a dab page for resonance where the term has scientific and colloquial meanings, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resonance_(disambiguation) . I guess you could do the same thing here. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term as used in this article is a fringe neologism that originated on blogs and appears to be largely limited to them. No reliable source uses the term, and most of the article appears to be a WP:COATRACK for racist gibberish. *** Crotalus *** 14:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at what I wrote above in my recommendation to redirect, you'll see that a reliable source does use the term – not with the neologistic fringe meaning but with the mainstream meaning of human genetic variation; hence my recommendation to redirect. Google scholar does turn up many more examples of the use of the term with that meaning. --Lambiam 06:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect would be fine with me. The important thing is that this title should not be an article reflecting the fringe, non-notable theories propounded on blogs by Steve Sailer and Half Sigma. *** Crotalus *** 13:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
POV: If you start looking at the gscholar hits, I think the dichotomy becomes less clear. For example, consider this article on HGP concerned with racism in polymorphism data, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.117.2992&rep=rep1&type=pdf . It is likely that as-written the article has a POV but it also seems that science and politics talk about the same activities. Indeed, politics has been intertwined with genetic testing and cataloging for a long time. If you want to start moralizing, as many already have, to make it "offensive" or incorrect to suggest a link between genes and behaviour potentially does a disservice to various disease sufferers for which links have been suggested- Down's syndrome, schizophrenia, mood disorders, etc. Calling the article racist may in fact be literally accurate as it may turn out that some genes segregate or correlate with certain other traits and it is likely some have taken the suggestive results to be more conclusive than is warranted. However, the topic in one form or another does seem notable and "racism" has been associated with the scientific efforts as well as the David Duke and other fringe sites. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article basically just covers all the issues discussed in this article Human genetic variation Race and genetics from a scientific racist POV. There are already several articles on the controversy of race and genetics. There is nothing wrong with having controversial views on wikipedia. But I'm not convinced that HBD has even risen to the level of controversy. It is mostly limited to the Halfsigma blog. --Gary123 (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. Had something really turned up, we'd expect it to be extensively covered and criticized in secondary sources. It looks to be some sort of neo-racism. Ngchen (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article, and write a proper one on the topic. The basic premise of the article is POV and In my opinion, false: "Human biodiversity (often abbreviated to HBD) is the belief that observed behavioral and cognitive differences between social classes, the two sexes, and the major human races can to a great extent be attributed to human genotypic variation. " Human diversity is indeed the subject of the study of human biological variation, but includes both variation from genetic and environmental causes, and studies this in order to see what it is and what effect it may have , including on human social behavior, but certainly not to any preordained conclusion. An attempt to capture a common term for a fringe POV. One of the refs given [29] , has a candid explanation of why they user the term in the june 2 entry: it sounds less racist. If a specific term can be found for the school of opinion that this is the major factor, then possibly a NPOV article can be written on it. Another contributor to that blog mentions in a comment to that posting that the principal book by that title Human biodiversity: genes, race, and history by Jonathan Marks, is by a noted opponent of the theory proposed to be called by that name, a sufficient indication that even the supporters of this view recognize their use as a deliberately misleading neologism. Nerd, above, has the right view of how to do this. In the meantime, redirect to Human genetic variation, protected if necessary. DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 28 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. JForget 00:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gran Turismo 5 - Car List[edit]

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

Pretty sure that such list is against wikipedia policy. Not sure which one. SkyWalker (talk) 06:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We can't have a list of every single car for every single racing game out there. Even if we just limit it to the most notable games, it starts to approach cruft. While it might be prudent to mention an important car or two on the main article itself, something like this just seems to be more suited to a smaller, more specific wiki. —LedgendGamer 09:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this list of gameplay items. Cliff smith ^talk 18:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - far too much detail that isn't required or allowed. Giant Snowman 14:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:IINFO, Listcruft 4, 8, 10.... --Saalstin (talk) 18:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Falls under WP:GAMECRUFT, and is an excessive list to maintain anyways. --12:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Per WP:IINFO. Joe Chill (talk) 20:39, 30 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... Tone 12:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shoit Neh Pig[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Earwig's findings are absolutely no assertion of notability, and there is nothing at all on Google, and his opinion is that this is a hoax as well. ArcAngel (talk) 05:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Ec, about to nominate.) A PROD contested by its author, my original reasoning was, "Absolutely no assertion of notability, and there is nothing at all on Google, which leaves me to believe this is a hoax as well." I stand by this reasoning. It might have been possible to delete under CSD G3 (blatant hoaxes and vandalism), but it isn't immediately apparent from reading the article that this is a hoax, so I have decided to go with an AfD. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 05:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete per WP:HOAX or WP:NEO or WP:V or WP:N, etc. No evidence of notability or indeed even of its existence. Tim Song (talk) 05:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Tim Song, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 10:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probable WP:HOAX and WP:NFT, certainly fails WP:V and WP:N. JohnCD (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MADEUP. Robofish (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the author, Daniel2147 (talk · contribs) tried to use a ((hangon)) on the page, which I removed, and left the following on the talk page, which I am quoting verbatim:

“

Dear Wiki, I know that this sounds a bit fishy and somewhat random, but it is a way people of Australia great one and another. If you were to remove the ban, I would continue to update it and make it worth the read.

Yours Sincerely Daniel2147 A Happy Wikipedian

”

Needless to say, I am not convinced. Tim Song (talk) 05:55, 27 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. The issue seems to be the notability if the awards and there appars to be a consensus the awards are not significant enough Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Malagurski[edit]

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

Vanity / unnotable film maker, who has made some small student films and received relatively unimportant awards like "nomination for best student film" – the article gives a false impression that he is a big-time film maker. Also, what concerns me is this, it also appears the user in question, who was more or less permanently banned in the end, also previously wrote articles about himself (Malagurski and others) that were deleted. Urban XII (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note cross-wiki spam[30][31]

Wikipedia seems to be part of his PR strategy, see the bottom of this page[32]

Delete per nom. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep
- User:Urban XII has made edits to University of Regensburg (3 edits in July), SOCRATES programme (3 edits on Sept 18) Pope Benedict XVI‎ (6 edits on his early life, 3 on the article itself, all on the same day, Sept 18) and then immediately jumped into deleting this article, which has nothing to do with the previous areas of interest, on the same day, Sept 18. All the other edits are so minimal (which is apparent from his contributions) that this leads me to the conclusion that this might be a case of a single purpose account. Perhaps Urban XII has some personal issues with the individual in the article, but this is not the place to discuss it. Evidence that this might be the case can be found on his talk page where, after I left him messages concerning the apparent POV pushing and personal issues he might have with the individual in the article, he replied "Grow up, Boris."[33], despite the fact that I'm not the user he keeps mentioning. However, I will address and disprove his claims, even though I believe it's quite evident that this is a personal matter between Urban XII and the individual in the article, and not a matter for Wikipedia.
- "Vanity / unnotable film maker" - untrue. Sources such as the Ministry for Kosovo and Metohija of the Republic of Serbia [34], Tanjug, Literárky V Síti[35], Novinar[36], Czech Free Press[37], Biber[38] have all had articles about this individual, including radio interviews on CKUW-FM Radio 95.9, CKCU-FM Radio 93.1, Radio Belgrade 2, and even a report on him on Pink Television [39]
- "who has made some small student films and received relatively unimportant awards" - untrue. First of all, although some of his films were student films, not all of them were student films - most of them were shown on International (non-student) film festivals and have won awards. Out of all the films, his awards include Best Student Film, 2005 - for "The Canada Project" at the First Take International Student Film Festival in Toronto, Canada [40], Young Authors of Europe, 2005 - for "The Canada Project" at the International Film Festival (not a student film festival, but an international film festival) in Palić, Serbia [41], Young Authors of Europe, 2005 - for "Vreme Je" at the International Film Festival in Palić, Serbia, Best Film, 2009 - for "Kosovo: Can You Imagine?" at the BC Days Serbian Documentary Film Festival (not a student film festival) in Burnaby, Canada[42], Winner, Silver Palm Award, 2009 - for "Kosovo: Can You Imagine?" at the Mexico International Film Festival 2009 (not a student film festival), Rosarito, Mexico [43], Official Selection, 2009 - for "Kosovo: Can You Imagine?" at the BridgeFest International Film Festival (not a student film festival), East Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina [44].
- "also previously wrote articles about himself (Malagurski and others) that were deleted" - whether it's true or not (I don't know), it's irrelevant. The user who wrote Boris Malagurski is User:Bokim, he is active on Serbian Wikipedia - Корисник:Bokim and I see no connection to the User:Bormalagurski you mentioned. Mr. Malagurski's previous activity on Wikipedia is irrelevant to the article. The person who wrote the article is neither banned nor has he ever been blocked.
- I don't see a reason for the deletion of this article, as several sources have shown the relevance of this person (also including Georgia Straight, Globe and Mail, The Canadian Press, Edmonton Journal, Umbrella and much more) and since when is it against the rules to for him to add a link to the Wikipedia page of himself on his website? If anything, he's promoting Wikipedia... --Cinéma C 01:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The articles you cite are not all about his film-making activity. Serb nationalists hold rally outside U.S. consulate in Montreal only describes him as a student in connection with a Serb nationalist rally he participated in. I'm still not convinced that he is notable, in fact I'm less convinced now. Urban XII (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, Mr. Malagurski is also the founder and president of the Serbian Youth League (the "nationalist rally" statement was referring to the one in Montreal, if you had carefully read the title, while Mr. Malagurski organized a peaceful protest in Vancouver) and I think we should add this information to the article, because he is not only a filmmaker, but an activist as well, interviewed in several media outlets. Whether you are "convinced" or not (and judging by how you're ignoring 90% of my arguments, I'm not sure you're making an effort to see things differently) is irrelevant, because the references speak for themselves. The Vanier College library in Montreal even has one of Mr. Malagurski's films in their library [45] and there are many, many more references, but the ones I already added are more than enough. --Cinéma C 18:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being briefly mentioned once on the website of an irredentist "Ministry for Kosovo and Metohija of the Republic of Serbia" doesn't indicate notability. He's clearly not notable as a film maker (yet), but he seems to be an avid Serb nationalist activist, especially in connection with the situation in Kosovo, for which he was previously banned from Wikipedia. However, I doubt his nationalist activism merits an own biography in Wikipedia. Urban XII (talk) 12:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Irredentist Ministry? Now I'm quite sure you are acting this way because the person in question is a Serb. You're not the first to accuse Mr. Malagurski of being a nationalist (if you read Croatian and Albanian comments on forums about him, you'll find similar comments) but that's your own opinion and don't use that as an argument on Wikipedia. --Cinéma C 18:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list of awards may look impressive if you don't look more thoroughly into it. You claim that he won "Silver Palm Award, 2009 - for "Kosovo: Can You Imagine?" at the Mexico International Film Festival 2009 (not a student film festival)". I stated that his films were students film. In fact, he was one of 14 winners in the category "Student Films"[46]. The film festival in question also isn't excactly Cannes. When we have this information, the award looks less impressive. All the other awards are less important than this one, many of them won at very obscure, small festivals (like the ""BC Days Serbian Documentary Film Festival" in Canada, which isn't mentioned anywhere else on the Internet than this article), most of them student awards. This is very far from an Academy Award-winning film director. Just some examples of how the article gives a very false impression that he is a way more important film maker than he actually is - it gave the impression that he was "the winner" of the Silver Palm Award at a festival in Mexico, when he was one of 76 winners of that award and only in the category student films, along with more than a dozen other student film makers. Urban XII (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, you really want this article deleted. What you have said is not true - "like the ""BC Days Serbian Documentary Film Festival" in Canada, which isn't mentioned anywhere else on the Internet than this article", Really? Did you not click on my Georgia Straight link? Here it is again. Please refrain from making false statements. --Cinéma C 18:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "BC Days Serbian Documentary Film Festival", the name of the festival used in the article, returns exactly one Google result (the Boris Malagurski Wikipedia article). "Serbian Documentary Film Festival" returns 18 Google results. The fact remains that this Serbian documentary film festival in Vancouver is a very obscure festival, and an award by that festival doesn't merit an article here. Urban XII (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Look, you said that this festival has no mention anywhere on the Internet outside of this article and I've proven you wrong (in fact, aside from the Georgia Straight link, I'll throw in another one: [47] - the official Serbian Days website). What would you like now? The Georgia Straight isn't to your liking? Would you like a book or "CNN Presents" story about the festival? Whether you think the Serbian documentary film festival is obscure or not is your own opinion. That does not give you the right to disregard references by known media outlets which are very reliable. --Cinéma C 19:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        This is a plain lie. "BC Days Serbian Documentary Film Festival" isn't mentioned anywhere else on the Internet. And if you misspelled it, and the correct spelling returns 18 Google results instead, it really doesn't make any difference. It's insignificant anyway. Urban XII (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        What are you trying to do here?! You keep typing in "BC Days Serbian Documentary Film Festival" and keep talking about how it's not mentioned anywhere in the Internet. It's a Serbian Documentary Film Festival organized within an event called "BC Days", "BC Days of Serbian Culture" or "BC Serbian Days". To make it shorter, it was written "BC Days Serbian Documentary Film Festival", but the Serbian Documentary Film Festival is mentioned on the Internet, look:
        
        Georgia Straight:
        "New Serbian documentary festival: human rights, athletes, and more" By Craig Takeuchi
        
        "The people who brought us the Vancouver Serbian FilmFest are embarking on a new venture that will help to expand upon what their annual film festival has to offer. The new Serbian Documentary Film Festival will present five documentaries about Serbian culture and issues during a one-day event (March 15) at the Serbian Centre (7837 Canada Way, Burnaby). The films will cover a range of topics and will include: Kosovo/Can You Imagine? , an exploration of human rights in Kosovo directed by Vancouver's Boris Malagurski"
        
        BCSerbianDays.org - BC Days of Serbian Culture
        
        The Voice of Serbia
        "and was declared the best film of the Documentary Film Festival "BC Days" in Vancouver"
        
        Das Biber
        "weiters wurde er als Best Film bei den BC Days Documentary Film Festival in Vancouver, Canada März 2009"
        
        etc etc. So, Urban XII, please stop trolling and POV pushing. Thanks, --Cinéma C 19:37, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - After reading this debate, it is more than evident that you have a bias toward one particular side. You have labeled someone as vain, and not notable, after throwing away a variety of sources. One of these sources, as mentioned earlier, include the Ministry for Kosovo and Metohija - a branch of the Government of Serbia. It is your point of you that this is an irredentist - your point of view that Serbia aims to seize or annex Kosovo... This point of view of yours is now evident. After viewing your contributions to Wikipedia, your first edits appear to be on the 17th of July. About a month later, you return, and here you are - nominating this article for deletion. Now, it is evident that this particular account has not been active for long, and yet, you have knowledge of a particular user's history on Wikipedia. According to your link, the last activity of that user on Wikipedia was two years ago. Your account is only a little over two months old. You began editing an article on Pope Benedict XVI, and then ended up on Boris Malagurski. Now, it appears that you have prior knowledge of that one particular Wikipedia user's history. Whether you have recreated an account here on Wikipedia is now a question. It is possible that this could even be a "vendetta" for a past reason. Moving on, there are national and international sources citing this filmmaker. The fact that it is also a Canadian film on the subject of Kosovo also has both local and international importance, as this subject does not receive as much attention in Canada. This way, Canadian citizens may be better informed through any point of view, rather than yours - that Serbia is an irredentist nation as you have said, aiming to seize Kosovo. Or, those who are against the independence of Kosovo are now nationalists, including those who do not agree with your point of view. As much as it may pain you, this film did in fact receive recognition - at a Canadian level, and an international level. It is clear that your aim here, on this account of yours at least, (I'm not sure about your other accounts) is to silence a perspective not matching yours, and push one where Serbia is actually an irredentist state. --Bolonium (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Such comments makes it evident to me that the Malagurski guy is using Wikipedia to promote himself, and it's evidently not the first time. Urban XII (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --Bolonium (talk) 18:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are no need for deleting. He is awarded, article is full of references, and there is good external links as well. Wiki should be informal about this kind of people. Tadija (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The awards are dubious and way less important than the way they are presented. None of the awards merit a Wikipedia biography, when you check them more closely, they are obscure student awards or just obscure. Boris is an eager self-promoter, but he's not notable here. Urban XII (talk) 11:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how the article passes the WP:NOTABLE as it is. None of the awards he's received are what I'd call a "notable award or honor", so he doesn't pass ANYBIO, and he doesn't pass any of the points of CREATIVE. Other than links to minor awards he's won, there don't seem to be any other reliable, secondary sources establishing his notability (though one of the Serbian sites may or may not be).--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Articles where many of the cited sources for notability are not in English are problematic to vet - Can one of the "defenders" point me to the most substantial (if any) non-English articles so I can translate and review? The English references are a bit weak for establishing notability. That reference in "The Straight" is just one sentence on the guy, and my google news search was not helpful. --Milowent (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Above stumping in mind, he really doesn't seem all that notable. Furthermore, the above bombardment does not help the keep vote. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. There are no independent, secondary sources that directly discuss this person in any detail. None are cited in the article, and I can't find any else. Yilloslime ^T_C 07:06, 26 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. JForget 00:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DaedalusX64[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I reiterate my reason behind the PROD: I have not been able to find any reliable sources that can provide any verifiable information for this emulator. Being heavily worked on, has "come a long way", or performs well doesn't assert notability. It needs reliable sources to establish that, but there's nothing out there (and I just did another search to make sure) beside forum postings and self-published entries from blogs. MuZemike 04:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 04:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —MuZemike 04:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertions of notability, and there are a few peacock terms in the article itself. ArcAngel (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nearest I can find are some news items at PSPUpdates and other PSP websites, but I'm not convinced that any of these sites qualify as reliable sources, and they are press-release type items. Marasmusine (talk) 12:14, 27 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. Sandstein 07:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crackle (physics)[edit]

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

No evidence of actual usage in physics, only exists for humor. Contested prod. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 02:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A bit of looking and I found this preprint [48] which uses crackle. It was later published in Classical and Quantum Gravity[49]. Gruntler (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is different from the paper already cited in the article. The authors are different and come from different universities. Gruntler (talk) 07:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~One~~ Some more: stellar dynamics conference proceeding and associated paper [50] using crackle heavily (in the title even). A robotics paper mentioning crackle [51]. This neurophysiology paper [52] deals heavily with crackle, as does this one [53]. Gruntler (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Delete. If sources can be added demonstrating this term is actually used or notable, I'll say keep. But for now the article just links two papers by the same author and a usenet faq--that doesn't cut it. Yilloslime ^T_C 07:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep That the other use is from another research group is evidence favoring notability, not impairing it. It's what is necessary to show the term has been adopted . DGG ( talk ) 22:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per User DGG. Several examples of its use exist. Martin451 (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Too early for an article... can be recreated later. Tone 12:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arrogant (2 Pistols album)[edit]

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

Finishing incomplete AFD following removal of PROD (which I initially added). Album is unsourced with no certain release date and contains speculative information. Wolfer68 (talk) 18:20, 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) 01:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 15:52, 26 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 Derf. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Friend Dahmer[edit]

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

Self-published comic book with no notability, no sources, etc. Prod was removed by someone saying it should be merged with the article about the creator, except that article is up for AFD as not being notable. This needs to be deleted even more so than the page about the person, as it's a nonnotable work by a nonnotable person. DreamGuy (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Derf, obviously. Several of the sources found for that AFD are about this comic. Not enough for a separate article, but most 24-page self-published comics don't get reviewed in Time or nominated for an Eisner.--Chris Johnson (talk) 00:00, 20 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) 01:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Derf. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Derf. Notable book nominated for Eisner and covered by Time, but no need to have this single paragraph in its own article at this time. If it can be expanded into its own article at a later date, that would be great. Sharksaredangerous (talk) 22:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SmartPAR[edit]

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

DELETE as this is a non-notable freeware app. JBsupreme (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Are you kidding me? This is an abandoned piece of software that the original author has considered obsolete - and we have an article explaining this? This is not what we are for. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Change !vote to keep on account of Tothwolf's work, and on account that the nom seems to be on a crusade against software that, if not for what's provided for in WP:IAR, should not be here. Besides, I'd be a hypocrite to keep my delete !vote here, given circumstances, and vote a keep !vote over on Joe's Own Editor. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I've rewritten this stub article and added references. Notability is not temporary. The nom was acting in bad faith in nominating this article for AfD as he was already aware of a reliable source that covers this subject. This book is linked in the Deletion Review that JBsupreme initiated after he did not like the outcome of the Parchive AfD:
Wang, Wallace (2004-10-25). "Finding movies (or TV shows): Recovering missing RAR files with PAR and PAR2 files". Steal this File Sharing Book (1st ed.). San Francisco, California: No Starch Press. pp. 164 –&#32, 167. ISBN 1-59327-050-X. Retrieved 2009-09-24.
--Tothwolf (talk) 20:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like passing coverage to me. Not honestly qualified as "non-trivial coverage" from a reliable third party, let alone multiple citations of it. Oh, and thanks for the strawman argument and assuming good faith. JBsupreme (talk) 07:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looks like notability to me, particularly when combined with everything else that can be found via Google. As much as you are unhappy with Parchive, put down the stick already, that horse ain't moving anymore. (Note that nominating the other related article which is also covered in the same book immediately after making the above comment was probably not a good move on your part either.) --Tothwolf (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the article is as uninformative as it can get. None of the External Links lead to the software's page--one is obvious spam. The software cannot be obtained in any easy way. The "old home" says it has a "new home" but the "new home" itself cannot be accessed. -- 85.133.201.70 (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Uninformative is subjective and is not a valid reason for deletion. The article includes a book as a reference so please feel free to further improve the article. The links seem to work fine for me, with the exception of the link that I marked as a ((dead link)). I certainly don't see anything resembling "spam" there. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One mere mention in one book is not notable. No, Tothwolf, I didn't follow you here. I followed JBsupreme. Am I stalking him too? Miami33139 (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Numerous references, software is still used. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 19:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A quick search gives many results, containing multiple tutorials (both on the first google results page) [54] [55], a mentioning on the PArchive site [56] and a lot of places to download it although the official site seems unavailable. It seems this tool is widely spread. (This is the first time I'm actually commenting on a deletion discussion, but I hope this can help out) Yarcanox (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Random websites with tutorials are not references. Since you said this is your first attempt at a discussion, the issue that primarily needs to be addressed is Wikipedia:Notability, which requires multiple sources, independent of the subject, that are reliable. sites like binaries4all would generally fail the standard of being reliable. Welcome to the free entertainment of AfD, Yarcanox. Miami33139 (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Generally, yes, but absolutely not in this case, unless you're going to argue that a utility designed to facilitate the downloading of binaries from Usenet isn't primarily warez-related. —Korath (Talk) 15:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As with QuickPar, merge to an Implementations section in Parchive. This is a sentence and a half of information specific to its subject, and a sentence and a half applicable to Parchive in general; and as the software has been obsolete for over seven times as long as it was up-to-date, it's unlikely in the extreme ever to get expanded much beyond that. —Korath (Talk) 15:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability seems to have been established. Haakon (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep being included in a standard work for the subject indicates a certain amount of notability, but it would be good to have additional references. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CorePNG[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this codec. Joe Chill (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertisement page. There's no reason to believe this codec is notable in any way. Offliner (talk) 09:20, 23 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) 01:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spamvertisement page. JBsupreme (talk) 01:15, 26 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. Sandstein 07:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seal the Deal![edit]

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

Appears to be a slogan promulgated (at least according to the only references) by the Secretary-General, referring to a more-or-less notable (but unnamed) United Nations organization; it's not an organzation, not a campaign, and not a notable slogan. Possibly rename (without redirect) to the actual name of the campaign (if there is one), or merge (with hat notes pointing to the song) to the UN organization actually running the campaign, if it really is a UN organization, and not an unsupported initiative of the Secretary-General. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, it's purpose seems to be to lobby a UN conference, which might very well be improper, even if it were a real UN organisation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From an official UNEP press release: "Hamburg's Climate Week, running under the UN slogan "Seal the Deal!", aims to generate international awareness and to significantly contribute to helping world leaders during the UN-Climate conference in Copenhagen make decisions that will help steer economies and populations towards a healthy future." ► RATEL ◄ 01:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's still a slogan; the actual organization, if any, should be listed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep the article. We have the right to know the UN Secretary actions to promote climate change agreement.--Nopetro (talk) 03:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We have no source that that's the name, it's the Secretary-General's slogan. Until recently, we did not have any articles on slogans, no matter how notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Things made up in a day don't belong. No evidence of reliable sources given or found. tedder (talk) 22:52, 23 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) 01:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless a suitable merge target is found. Non-notable slogan. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the slogan for a petition to be presented at the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 and that should be the redirect target, just like Durban Strategy (AfD discussion) redirects to World Conference against Racism 2001. Most of the content here that isn't plain soapboxing duplicates what is covered by the UNCCC2009 article. Uncle G (talk) 05:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the slogan is also the name of this campaign, as Uncle G points out, the content has a better merge target. That said, I don't feel this should be a redirect - it doesn't seem to be a decent point for redirect, and the article is more of a soapbox besides. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:31, 26 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 Crimeface. Tone 12:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna Stott[edit]

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

Non-notable person/possible COI. Links to the film Crimeface, which also seems to be non-notable/advert. Lugnuts (talk) 17:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Crimeface.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Clubmarx (talk) 16:06, 22 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) 00:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Crimeface. Worth including in enctclopedia per coverage in reliable sources. Not notable enough for independent article of work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to Crimeface. The film is the only notable thing about him. Joe Chill (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge currently to Crimeface but allow seperate article when sources become available to write a better BLP and source a greater notability. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 09:19, 27 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. JForget 00:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Dower[edit]

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

University of Texas law student who was appointed as a a student regent in the University of Texas system. No outside sources, fails to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO. Ali ^(t)_(c) 00:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Student representative to state regents doesn't qualify for notability that meets encyclopedic guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet notable. Kevin (talk) 08:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet the GNG, and he's a couple of (dozen) levels below the WP:POLITICIAN it looks like he'll be aiming for one day... --Saalstin (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Student regent does not make him notable. --Rigel1 (talk) 15:47, 29 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 12:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crimeface[edit]

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

Non-notable film/advert. Links to Krishna Stott, who seems to also be non-notable. Lugnuts (talk) 17:12, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Awards imply notability. Also has several 3rd party coverage. Clearly meet criteria 1 and 2 of WP:Web See awards here.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. No independent sources.--Karljoos (talk) 18:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:So_fix_it. No independent sources does not determine notability. Google it. But if you insist, I've added four 3rd party independant sources.--TParis00ap (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The "no sources" is an "extra" (as in "on the house"). I think the subject is non-notable.--Karljoos (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've wikified the page, added 4 independant sources, external links, and a link from another article.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:38, 19 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) 00:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability established by awards and substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per ChildofMidnight. Joe Chill (talk) 01:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the proper de-prodding by User:Jclemens, its having been searchably notable prior to nomination, and per improvements after-nomination by User:TParis00ap. Good job. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 08:55, 27 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. The "keep" opinions by Dream Focus does not address the problems mentioned in the nomination, and those of Tokek also do not provide sources beyond those sufficient to establish a dictionary definition. This closure does not preclude a redirect to, or a mention in, the article gentleman thief. Sandstein 07:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitō[edit]

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

Nothing more then a Dictionary definition. The examples are based on original research or personal opinion. Content is unverified against reliable sources —Farix (t | c) 11:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 11:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It's an interesting set of links, but I'm not seeing any evidence that a kaito differs in any way from a cat burglar. --Gwern (contribs) 14:34 19 September 2009 (GMT)
- Of course the main problem is, how do you define a "phantom thief" and what distinguishes them from "cat burgers" or "gentleman thieves" or other fictional thieves? The definition the article gives is extremely vague, and the list of "examples" offers no commonality either. —Farix (t | c) 16:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Searching is not helped by the fact that Kaitō is a common family name. However, I read lo these distant years ago a discussion of kaitō as a distinctly Japanese treatment of the gentleman thief character type. Will take a while to track this down, I suspect (I'm not even sure whether it was in a book or magazine). I suspect it would be Very Good Idea to get someone familiar with 20th century Japanese literature, especially mysteries, involved. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it is a Japanese take on gentleman thief, then it should probably be merged/redirected there. However, there are just too many problems with both the given definition and the list. —Farix (t | c) 18:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rename to List of Kaitō in notable Japanese media. Dream Focus 01:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the definition of Kido? Without one, the entire list fails ever aspect of WP:SAL. —Farix (t | c) 02:26, 25 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) 00:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there appears to be no actual clear definition of kaitō, but in either case, this is purely an attempt at making one, followed by a half dozen examples (some right per reason of they were called that in the work, some not so much). Clearly fails WP:NOT. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, where are you getting the conclusion that there's no clear definition? from the shoddy state of the article? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That and google...seems some think "phantom thief" something just "thief" etc. Is there a clear definition? Though even if there were, my view would still be the same. Its still a dicdef (or attempt there of) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - it seems to be bordering on OR and synthesis. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is largely not based on OR or personal opinion, as the characters are given the kaitō label in the stories themselves, not by the wiki editor. Yahoo! Japan Dictionary lists "kaitō" in its J-E dictionary as "phantom thief" [57] and J dictionary [58] as well. Currently there is no redirect replacement for it that would make sense, since apparently this is uniquely Japanese. There has been some misunderstanding in this discussion that the term is not well defined, or usage of the term is problematic. That's not the case. Admittedly, currently not a very worthy article yet. Hopefully it will evolve beyond the realm of listcruft articles with time. —Tokek (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is still nothing but a dictionary. Throwing in a few examples does not make it less so. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give real sources that define the genre and gives details about the genre's characteristics? Providing a translation of the term is not sufficient, nor a reason to keep the article. —Farix (t | c) 22:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with what the article currently states, that kaitō is a stock character and not a genre. Not that I need to clarify, since I never claimed it should be treated mainly as a genre. —Tokek (talk) 00:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if you agree with the article or not. Where are the reliable sources? —Farix (t | c) 02:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The opinions of the editor do matter. Reliable sources help people determine notability, but you are still suppose to think for yourself, and form your own opinions. Not a lot of searchable English news sources talk about manga at all, thus the reason so many manga articles for extremely notable and well read series end up getting deleted. Because some believe we can't think for ourselves and decide what belongs, but instead must mindlessly follow a suggest guideline a small number of people came up with, and destroy anything someone in the mainstream media hasn't specifically commented on. Perhaps searching the Japanese Wikipedia, for who these series listed refer to the character, would help. Since manga is so popular in Japan, surely someone has published books on the common types of characters found in them. You can look for that if you want. You can search whatever media is out there in Japan that reviews manga for that word, and also sites that sell it might list it in their summary of the products they sell. Dream Focus 10:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V is not a fundamental policy that can be ignored. Neither can WP:NOR and WP:NPOV for that matter. Simply agreeing with a vague, unsourced definition doesn't make the definition any more legitimate. The article fails even that except in what the term translates to. And then it runs afoul of WP:NOT, which can't be ignored either. —Farix (t | c) 11:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Look at this. [59] When searching through Wikipedia articles that use the word, I found its in the title of many notable manga series. Dream Focus 10:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which proves what exactly? That the term is used in titles and character names? But no definitions or characteristics for the genre or character archetype are ever given. Also, articles on Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for other articles on Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 11:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Wikipedia category for this. Category:Kaitō anime and manga I searched the Anime News Network to see how many times the word was used, and got plenty of results. One of the examples of the Kaito listed, Lupin, had an anime special about him with that word in the title! [60] Kaitō Lupin - 813 no Nazo (special) So he was referred to as such. The word is used quite often to refer to characters like this. The article is clearly notable. Dream Focus 10:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what exactly does this prove? All it proves is that the term is used in some titles or as character names. It still doesn't define the meaning of the term or give any details about the genre or the character archetype. And most of those article in Category:Kaitō anime and manga were placed there based on original research and personal opinions instead of based on reliable sources. —Farix (t | c) 11:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. nomination withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 22:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eliza Gamble[edit]

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

There appears to be no indication of importance. The article was previously tagged for this reason ( CSD A7), but another editor (not the creator) rejected this and removed the template. DoktorMandrake 00:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A Google Books search shows clear notability. I see that someone has already added some sources to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "find sources" tag should not be an empty formality: if you actually look at the gbooks link you find plenty of evidence of notability. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination withdrawn - sources have been added and importance is now indicated. DoktorMandrake 22:05, 28 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) 19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Neblett[edit]

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

This biography of a "photographer, singer and editor" does not demonstrate notability; it cites no sources and searches do not find any. Nothing relevant in News; Google is Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter and the like. The NYTimes one looked promising, but I can't actually find him there. SPA author, reads like self-promotion; certainly not notable to the standard of WP:CREATIVE. JohnCD (talk) 11:32, 19 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) 00:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Kevin (talk) 08:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:BIO. Talented, but more of a CV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:38, 26 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. JForget 22:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 48 Laws of Power[edit]

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

This article has no assertion of notability, has only one source (which appears to be a blog), and consists almost completely of a list that, I assume, is essentially the table of contents. The page for the author of this book is almost exclusively about this book, and other than the intro, is just an "In popular culture" section about this book. Nburden ^(T) 06:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: The list is just the table of contents. Nburden ^(T) 06:57, 19 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) 00:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The NYPost considers it a best seller [61]; USA today has a review [62]; similar LA Times [63], & quite a lot else in Google News -- they';re right there in the heading to the AfD, and in earlier years. Even for what appears to be junk, it's advisable (& ought to be necessary) to follow WP:BEFORE. The reason it only has a toc is because it used to be an overlong inappropriate detailed summary of the book & that got reduced sharply. But the reviews at least can and should be added. DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Notability is established with the reviews and NY times bestseller. Cleaning up the article is an editting issue. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This volum has become a true classic and has started to influence social and business discussions. The article is a bit of a stub, but maybe over time it will become something. Just give it a bit more time and don't try to be holier than the pope by citing deletion policies. 156.109.18.2 (talk) 07:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: This article was started 9 October, 2005. That's nine days short of four years. How long should we leave things, hoping that they'll be expanded? I'm not holier than the pope (and I never even cited any deletion policies, just general article requirements), but I think that, if after four years, all we have managed is the TOC, then maybe that's all we're going to get. Nburden ^(T) 00:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article is not just a table of contents. If one were to strip that out, one would still have a stub which is a perfectly good starting point for an article about the book. There is no deadline. The reality is that older literature won't get as much attention from editors as current popular culture topics but that doesn't mean that someone won't come around to add to the article. -- Whpq (talk) 03:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 23:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For some reason, Twinkle didn't closed this AFD on the first click but did remove the AFD tag and added the oldafdtag on the talk page. Now it is closed after second attempt. --JForget 23:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gobby[edit]

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 03:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a quick look, its got an article in http://www.linux.com/archive/feature/119281 for starters. Feel free to expand on this. Only saw this because I was looking at the article (eg wikipedia page, saw the deletion discussion). —— nix eagle^{email me} 20:13, 20 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) 00:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Linux.com article and the appearance in Dragonia[64]. --Karnesky (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, solid number of sources, nomination was not adequately researched. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Decent sources found that cover the subject matter in detail. Quantpole (talk) 12:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was trying to find software with these capabilities, and Wikipedia helped me find Gobby - very cool software too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hans Henderson (talk • contribs) 10:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not enough content to merge; if you do wish to merge it, contact me and I will restore and redirect it. NW (Talk) 21:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ASMUN[edit]

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

I originally declined the CSD tag because I found this, however after a bit more looking it does not seem like the organization is truly notable. Icewedge (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per precedent of other deleted MUNs as non-notable. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 20 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 00:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Student organizations are rarely notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content into Ain Shams University. Billbowery (talk) 22:58, 26 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 Takara Tomy. Closing as "merge" on the suggestion from the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Z-Knights[edit]

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

This is a minor toy line that doesn't assert notability. It is just made up of plot summary and a trivial list of the toys. TTN (talk) 18:55, 19 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 00:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to TOMY, the parent company. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:06, 26 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) 03:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Lenzi[edit]

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

Non-notable actor, not had significant roles in multiple notable productions so fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Article explicitly states that two of the three cited roles are minor. Prod removed by article creator after good faith attempt to improve article, but merely add more references to IMDB which is not regarded as a reliable source. Tassedethe (talk) 14:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a few (four) minor roles. That's it. Not notable. -- Whpq (talk) 18:25, 22 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 00:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:08, 26 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 New Zealand national rugby union team. Closing as "merge" on the suggestion from the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonded by Blood (poster)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unsourced orphan article for a poster campaign. The only third party notability coverage appears to be a single trivial article in the WSJ. Previous AfD, from two and a half years ago, ended in no consensus but was mostly on the merge side though it was not clear where to merge the article to and thus it remainded rather untouched since. –– Lid^(Talk) 12:53, 19 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 00:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to All Blacks rugby union ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:10, 26 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) 19:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Shackle[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable YouTube entertainer. The only real claim of notability here is the competition win, but that can't be verified. PC78 (talk) 12:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete No references/sources to back up his claims of notability. In my opinion, he is just an amateur who tries to have an article on Wikipedia. "continues to make music as a hobby" and "DJ Shackle had collaborated with rapper-wannabes who are now somewhat well known.". From what I can see in these two quotes, these infos does not justify any notability at all. I have also seached on Google about the competition in which he participated and won, I have not found any search hits except this Wikipedia page... Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 20:27, 19 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, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete. A hobby DJ that collabs with "somewhat well known" rappers. Nd won an obscure contest. No dice. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:20, 27 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) 19:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroes the Series[edit]

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

Declined PROD: Subject, a web parody miniseries, does not appear to meet notability guidelines - see e.g. lack of detectable news coverage. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:17, 19 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 00:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Seems to be a well intentioned parody sponsored by the sponsoring network for Heroes, which is cool unto itself - but "ain't it cool" isn't a rationale to keep. I say week, though, because of the fact that it's hosted as a parody by NBC - and I don't know if that holds water in the slightest. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:03, 26 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 12:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loyally Group[edit]

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

non notable travel agency and advertising. Johnfamson (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Uzbekistan-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:48, 20 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 00:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as spam (g11). So tagged. This shouldn't have lasted this long. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:11, 26 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 A7. I noted the prod, but seeing as the same IP user later asked for deletion I took the PROD removal as not offering a "keep" opinion.

John Arvin Nery[edit]

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

Article had been prodded[65] based on a good faith gseach not turning up sources. Prod removed without comment by an IP editor; later another IP editor claiming to be the subject of the article requested removal. My search hasn't turned up notability, but as prod has been contested AfD seems like the way to go here. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even assuming the email request is not genuine, WP:N is not being met. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 26 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) 03:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Vinter[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. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 02:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sadly, nothing notable about a double murderer. An appeal is not per se notable either. Bearian (talk) 15:25, 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, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability not established. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is not significant. Location (talk) 02:44, 26 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. Consensus is that coverage of the subject is superficial, not independent and/or unreliable. Several "keep" comments do not address this WP:N issue, including those of Ohms law, Cyclopia and Quiddity; these opinions are given less weight in assessing consensus. Sandstein 07:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leafpad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. This was deleted in AFD in 2007. Joe Chill (talk) 02:39, 19 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 00:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Pesonal opinions on notability aside, there's nothing in the article that isn't self-evidently verifiable. If article size (stub-ness) is a legitimate reason to delete articles then go ahead, otherwise I don't see what the problem is.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles need to be verified and notable. It has nothing to do with size. What you just said is your personal opinion. Joe Chill (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing though, everything in the current article is verified. Stating that either it is or is not notable is pure opinion. Regardless, I can already feel my back getting up about this, which is one reason why I generally don't participate in this process (along with the fact that it's fundamentally broken), so I feel that I have to say "good luck" and walk away now. :)
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not pure opinion with many notability guidelines. Joe Chill (talk) 10:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've expanded the article and added references. --Tothwolf (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Solid references and nominator could not demonstrate compelling reasons for deletion. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A bunch of download sites doesn't show notability. If it did, every software could have an article. Joe Chill (talk) 10:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The references in the article that show just how many OS distributions include Leafpad link to the software package information (which includes things like the packages' ChangeLog, a list of software dependencies, known bugs, etc.) and are not "download sites". Claiming these are just "download sites" is a silly argument as these references clearly show Leafpad as being included and distributed with these operating system distributions. These are not links to independent 3rd party download sites such as Tucows or Download.com. That said however, even sites such as Tucows or Download.com can in some cases help establish notability, although in many cases a single link to a 3rd party download site would in and of itself probably not be enough. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, it can only show notability per an inclusionist's POV. Joe Chill (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Joe, such comments and thinking are divisive and do not support community building or improvement of Wikipedia. Personally, I've never really aligned myself with either inclusionism or deletionism and find I tend to identify more with eventualism. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I will not read any essays. Joe Chill (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I indented the below discussion (until Ray's "Clear and obvious delete vote") to separate from votes. -M.Nelson (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources description:
A bunch of download sites.
One sentence on Mousepad.
A wiki called Fedora
A changelog
A paragraph in a book
None of these sources show notability. It looks like the keeps are just because they think that the software is useful. Joe Chill (talk) 10:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Joe, you need to stop these mass AfD nominations. I'm well aware of your past account and the history of what led you to begin mass nominating articles for deletion. Just because someone gave you a lot of grief over an article you wrote does not give you the right to mass nominate other articles in retaliation towards the entire community. This behaviour is disruptive to Wikipedia, continues to violate both WP:POINT and WP:PRESERVE, and it needs to stop. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's not true. You're another editor assuming bad faith. Joe Chill (talk) 19:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Joe, aren't we all editors here? Wikipedia:Assume good faith#About good faith: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence. Assuming good faith does not prohibit discussion and criticism, but instead editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice." --Tothwolf (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You have no evidence. Don't state things like fact when you don't know. That is assuming bad faith. Joe Chill (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Would you like me to give you a list of editors that nominate a lot of articles for AFD so that you can assume bad faith towards them also? Or maybe a list of editors that usually !vote delete? Joe Chill (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm well aware of who regularly makes AfD nominations with regards to Computing and Software related topics. If you would like to discuss a less disruptive way of getting articles improved, I'd be happy to share a few non-obvious pointers that are more likely to result in an improved article. --Tothwolf (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Tuthwolf, I haven't done anything that violated any policies in AFDs. You said that I'm editing to make a point and editing in bad faith. After that, I'm not going to pay attention to you pointing me to WP:CIVIL. I will not discuss anything about how to deal with software articles with people that have opinions like yours. You were assuming bad faith no matter what you say. Joe Chill (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Joe Chill and I have resolved our differences in a discussion continued outside of AfD, therefore the above discussion between Joe Chill and myself should be ignored.
--Tothwolf (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clear and obvious Delete Come on. Blatant failure of WP:N, which requires significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject. None of these sources even begin to qualify. We have listings in packages and configuration manuals as our "sources." Are we going to have separate articles on ll, vims, and every other entry in the bin directory? Ray^Talk 20:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ray (above). Though it has many references (all the info is verifiable), none of them estabilish notability.-M.Nelson (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After looking at the sources given and other potential WP:RS, I am unable to find significant coverage Chzz ► 23:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, fails WP:N and no significant coverage otherwise. easy delete Theserialcomma (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N. Crafty (talk) 03:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Completely non-notable, no reliable sources. Skinny87 (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is included in a huge amount of Unix distributions, which makes a case for notability. All information is verifiable. It is quite normal for open source software to not be hugely reviewed by external articles, just because there is no need to do it, for the very nature of open source stuff. --Cyclopia (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If we can get a ref (perhaps there already is one) that says that it is "included in a huge amount of Unix distributions", perhaps some claim like "it is the most popular Unix text editor", then that might be enough to claim notability. Currently there is no such claim. Also, if you can find another example of open source software that is not externally reviewed but is still considered to be notable, then that might provide a prior consensus to work on (or provide us with another article to delete). -M.Nelson (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion review and the corresponding AfD are a good startpoint, in my opinion. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About the included in Unix distributions, you can find the sources in the article. There are 12 different Unix distros listed, among those most mainstream Linux ones and all three main BSDs. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 19:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Exists but isn't notable due to the lack of significant coverage. Just because stuff exists does not make it notable. Quantpole (talk) 13:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cyclopia - purposefully-minimal programs (78k) tend to not get reviewed verbosely! Or Merge to LXDE. As well as simply appearing in many distributions, it is the primary text editor for LXDE, and the source for the primary text editor in Xfce (Mousepad (software), which was merged into Xfce). -- Quiddity (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being included in Linux distros does not make something independently notable. Miami33139 (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the lack of significant coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It might be helpful to also mull over the opt-in popcon statistics from Debian and Ubuntu for Leafpad and Mousepad (Mousepad being a fork of Leafpad) and comparing these with other popular text editors. Note that these are opt-in so the numbers can only be used relative to other numbers in these charts. The actual number of users will be much higher and this particular opt-in sample only covers these two Linux distributions.
Debian popcon: leafpad
Debian popcon: mousepad
Ubuntu popcon (note, long raw text table)
--Tothwolf (talk) 02:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't appear to be something we would track on Wikipedia in terms of determining notability. We need the non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Is this getting through to you at all yet? JBsupreme (talk) 06:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The editor above provided exactly that. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 14:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Machine generated statistics from the distributor do not determine notability. Miami33139 (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed, these are not "reliable third party publications". -M.Nelson (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Contrary to some of the shouting above by three editors who have taken to following me around, (isn't it interesting how vocal they became once I tried to improve this and some other articles currently at AfD?) these numbers are valid statistics that can be used in a relative manner. They are created by two independent 3rd parties which are completely separate from the subject at hand. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Note: indented by -M.Nelson (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Toth, there has been no "shouting" above. The only time someone got a little riled up was JB with "Is this getting through to you at all yet?", where he is simply re-iterating his point. In their (and my) opinion, the sources listed are not "reliable third party publications"; just because they (strongly) disagree with your definition, it doesn't mean that they're getting un-civil. -M.Nelson (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No. Source code, and distributions aren't reliable sources. We need independent reliable sources that discuss the subject in a non-trivial context. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Consensus is that coverage of the subject is insufficient. Any redirect is an editorial matter. Sandstein 07:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PQ Angels[edit]

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

Unnotable manga series. Does not appear to have even been published in tankōbon form. Unsourced BLP issue as well. Fails WP:N and WP:BK. Prod removed by User:Jinnai with note that "passes criteria #5 on BK" and further note at Anime/manga project that "PQ Angels should pass criteria #5 of WP:BK as Takeuchi and SM have been the study of multiple scholarly reviews and used as examples in several of my own college animation classes." however I do not agree that Takeuchi is in any way "historically significant" enough to have all of her works fall under BK#5. This series does not inherit notability from Takeuchi and is unnotable on its own. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge (see discussion below for merge reason) per criteria i have already listed. Her impact on the bishojo and magical girl genres has had lasting effects that still reverberate throughout the manga and anime industry and beyond. Her manga, the anime adapted from it, and she herself has been the subject of multiple scholarly reviews about the impact on the art style and it's impact on multiple industries across multiple contintents. Much like Superman has defined the Superhero genre, her most notable work, Sailor Moon has defined the Magical girl 陣内 _Jinnai 01:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)genre.[reply]

She is, at best, a won-hit wonder. Sailor Moon was highly popular and a highly notable work. The rest of her unfinished, dropped short works are not, nor is she historically significant, only Sailor Moon was. Her ONE manga had impact, not all of her works. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While Naoko Takeuchi is well known for her work on Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon, it is the only thing she is known for and is not "historically significant". To be "historically significant", one needs a large body of highly notable work which is regularly a subject of academic study instead of one highly successful work. This disqualifies the subject for criterion #5. But the work was very short lived with only 4 chapters released before it was canceled. —Farix (t | c) 02:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: It would be good to discuss who are those "historically significant" mangaka. That means not just "Tezuka" as manga can't be just reduced/limited to him. KrebMarkt is cursing flawed perceptions, including his, limited to what is translated in each language and/or commercially successful. --KrebMarkt 14:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment To be "historically significant" requires a number of things. The first is that they are prolific writers or artisans. This means that they have a large body of work and that much of that work is notable. The second is that they have had long lasting influence on the industry and other writers and artisans in the field that is well documented. And third is that a significant portion of their work is the subject of academic study. In short, it will be someone listed as either top or high on the WP:ANIME/ASSESS importance scale. However, not every manga artist who is ranked with such high importance will have their works automatically pass WP:BK #5. —Farix (t | c) 18:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Where do you get that from? I don't see the first in any way from #5. That they have a lasting influence on the industry, how long and how much? As for #3, well that is the presumption, but that goes back to #1. How much work is required? I do not see them needing to be prolific per criteria #5. FE: Would Akira Toriyama suffice?陣内 _Jinnai 19:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - @TheFarix I can't agree with your criterion but this is not the place to discuss lengthly of this. --KrebMarkt 19:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have any references been searched for here? Surely there must be more than just the one for A.N.N. Knowledgekid87 10:31, 27 September 2009 (AT)

Yes, they have. No other in English other than SM fansites which mention it as another o fher works and Wiki mirrors, neither of which of course are reliable sources. Same thing with the Japanese references, and considering it appears it was never even published, the JA article has the one line noting it was written and never published in volume form, and giving a list of characters. That's it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A cursory Google search shows tons of links and sites devoted to the series, and BK#5 applies quite well. It seems there is little doubt it is widely known in its genre. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fan sites and scanslations are not reliable sources nor indicators of notability. Can you actually point to reliable sources that give any significant mention of this work, not passing mentions on a Sailor Moon fansite. And no, BK#5 does not apply at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fan sites maybe are not completely RS (I am not an expert on manga), but the huge amount of sites dedicated to the subject demonstrates, in my opinion, the notability of the subject, in the essential meaning of the word -a large amount of people people know it, read it, talk about it. Policies and guidelines are good and well, but they should be applied with a grain of elasticity as per WP:NOTLAW, without forcing ourselves, as another editor said once, to be strict constructionists. In this case, there is plenty of outside evidence of the notability of the subject. Each possible source maybe is not enough, but the sheer amount of them shows that, in my opinion, the article is best left standing and possibly improved. As for BK#5 applying, I guess we're in "to each one his/her point of view" territory. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single RS about it and fan sites are not RS at all. Most simply copy off each other or from here while noting a list of her works. That does not confer any notability of the subject at all, particularly when the bulk of those results are redundant links, mirror sites, and illegal scanslation sites. If a Google search conferred notability, that would make me notable at 47,900 hits for my user name alone. And, FYI, "huge amount" of sites is paltry compared to legitimately notable manga. Her truly notable series, Sailor Moon gets almost 7 billion hits, not the less than just over 91,000 PQ Angels get. There is no outside evidence of notability of this work at all. It was never even published beyond its serialization. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right it doesn't show evidence of notability, but it does show evidence that it may exist. No one has imo clearly demonstrated how BK#5 doesn't apply. Farix has just stated his own interpretation of it, which he is entitled to, but myself, and it seems others, do not agree with that.陣内 _Jinnai 00:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your idea of manga notable enough to be on WP is Sailor Moon, I personally think your opinion to be a bit too restrictive. I may self-declare as an inclusionist (mostly), and as such being on a side of the "include/delete" spectrum, but I think even most strong deletionists would agree that manga or anime less notable than Sailor Moon deserve inclusion. As for your user name, on my Google makes 5600 hits :) , and it doesn't seem you have a huge fanbase or entire websites devoted to you -if you do have, I'd support inclusion of an article on you. Also, the fact that fansites copy each other in my opinion is not problematic: it just means that they do not need to reinvent the wheel each time. But they are nonetheless interested in covering the subject. This for sure means something. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 01:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I was speaking purely of Takeuchi's works, of which only Sailor Moon is notable enough for inclusion at this time. There are plenty of manga who have not meet such fame that have articles on Wikipedia which are notable enough to have them. That does not mean that ALL manga should have them, nor is Takeuchi "historically significant" enough to just go "oh well, she wrote it, so it gets an article." My google hits show 47,900, but likely you spelled it wrong (very common). And its easy to make a fansite. I could make myself 10 in 10 minutes or less. Fansites are not indicators of notability nor reliable sources for just that reason. Anyone can toss up a fansite, and rip off other people's content under the idea that is easier to steal than to be creative. Anyway, its obvious this is a pointless discussion. In truth, you have not found nor produced a single reliable source to back up your claim nor to even validate that this work exists beyond illegal sites and fansites (none of which are reliable, and there fore can not be used to me WP:V. Further, there is no coverage of this work at all, significant or otherwise, in any reliable source. Even the biographies about Takeuchi do not mention this one. There is no argument of "evidence of notability" because there is none by Wikipedia standards, no matter what fan standards you want to apply. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the Ghits: I copied-and-pasted your username, 5060 hits here. Who knows. Anyway, it's the kind of hits that can have some weight in the discussion. You say that "anyone can do a fansite", which is true, but the fact that thousands of people go and actually make a fansite on that single subject must mean that there are thousands of people who care about it. This means, in my opinion, that the subject is notable in the broad sense that there is a substantial number of people who acknowledge its existence. Even if this is not strictly WP:N, my personal opinion is that it must have some weight in the discussion. I have no "fan standards" because I actually have almost no knowledge nor interest in manga. It just seems to me to be something notable in its own respect. That's it. I'd say we can agree to disagree and move on. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 02:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of [[WP:GHITS is irrelevant to notability, though Google searches are usefull for finding reliable third-party sources. The number of fan sites are also irrelevant to notability as they are not reliable. Notability is not the same as popularity. Nor can you really measure popularity since many hits are likely the result of the author's bibliography. —Farix (t | c) 03:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you there. True, in English there isn't any internet sources and it appears past results haven't shown any internet sources to exist, but that's just it; everyone here is talking purely of internet sources for a work by a historically important author.

However, I would be fine with a merge (not a redirect) to Takeuchi's article as a compromise.陣内 _Jinnai 02:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (and not a mere redirect) fine for me too. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 02:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BURDEN is on you to prove that the work is notable by finding reliable third-party sources. You can't simply allude to "sources exists" without actually providing the sources. At best, this should only be a redirect as there is nothing to merge. —Farix (t | c) 03:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You, and Colletonian, did not follow WP:BEFORE either. Collectonian put those tags up and prodded the same day. As soon as I removed the prod you brought this to AfD. You did not consider a merge, or even a redirect and gave short notice on a "historically signifigant author"'s work.陣内 _Jinnai 03:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naoko Takeuchi is not a "historically significant" manga creator. She has only had one successful manga series in her entire career. The rest have been very short lived or simply dropped with no other critical reception. That's not a hallmark for someone's whose entire body of work would qualify under WP:BK#5. —Farix (t | c) 03:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Takeuchi may be "historically significant", but not enough to grant an article to every single minor work of her. If PQ Angels deserves to be kept, why not allow an article for every single manga created by Osamu Tezuka, Akira Toriyama, Go Nagai, Yoichi Takahashi and every other "historically significant" manga author? PQ Angels did not even have that much of an impact as a manga and it wasn't the first manga canceled for problems between a publisher and an author. If she had that big an influence in the Shoujo genre with Sailor Moon and that's enough to keep such a minor work like PQ Angels, then also Nagai redefined the genre with Cutie Honey and all his minor works deserve an article in the Wikipedia, no matter how small they are, if they have no tankobon or if they are only know by manga experts. Osamu Tezuka is the most "historically significant" manga author but that's not enough reason to keep an article for all of his more than 700 manga series. Not even Miguel de Cervantes has such treatment for his minor works. Jfgslo (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. BC Rocky (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (for now) She's certainly a notable and historically significant mangaka, but this work isn't particularly so nor does it seem to have the breadth of coverage needed to meet our requirements. That could change, but only if she picks it back up and the coverage of her work meets our criteria. When and if that occurs, I don't see a reason the article should not be recreated but at this time I have to !vote for deletion. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contra Farix, as best I can tell from the wording of WP:BK #5, a creative artist can be historically significant for just a single work provided it is influential enough (Don Quixote, anyone?). From the influence of Sailor Moon alone, I believe Takeuchi is one of the handful of historically significant mangaka. That said, I'm now going to contradict myself and say merge to Takeuchi's article (and trim to avoid undue weight) even though I take it to pass WP:BK #5, on the grounds that it's not enough of a work to warrant an article: four serial chapters which were lost and never reprinted in volume form. If it's somehow rescued from the dustbin of the publisher and thus of history, no prejudice against recreating the article again -- but until then, WP:PRESERVE. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Naoko Takeuchi, there is already a short summary of the series on her wiki article page. - Knowledgekid87 15:37, 1 October 2009 (AT)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Ricotta's Mighty Robot vs. the Naughty Night Crawlers from Neptune[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ricky Ricotta's Mighty Robot vs. the Naughty Night Crawlers from Neptune

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

While the rest of the series is quite notable, I can't find any evidence this book was published. Not listed on the author's site, not listed at world cat, not listed at amazon. Lots of web sites asking when it will be published, but nothing saying it's seen the light of day.

Prod contested by IP editor who says the series is available. However, I still find no evidence that the individual book (the title of this article) is available. (And if no one else can find evidence it is, the book should probably be delinked from the series article.) Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because also unable to verify existence or notability:

Delete. I searched a wide variety of sources as well: AMICUS National Library Database, local library databases--indicating that it isn't in library circulation--, Amazon.com, Amazon.ca, chapters.indigo.ca, Dav Pilkey's website, Scholastic.ca...I can't think of any other place to check for it. It looks to me like a rumored book. There's hype on WikiAnswers and a couple of blogs, but they just say it's "unreleased" or that the date's unknown (and a few of them look like they've just copied the list off of the Wikipedia page, which leads us nowhere). If a reliable source pops us in a few months then the article can easily be rebuilt, but right now it looks to be completely unverifiable. DreamHaze (talk) 02:25, 19 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) 00:17, 19 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 00:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - violates WP:CRYSTAL as per DreamHaze fisking. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A3 (no content). All of one line. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note Ricky Ricotta's Mighty Robot vs. the Naughty Night Crawlers from Neptune has been speedily deleted per A3. However, I was unaware of the second article that was present in the middle of the article. That is not speedyable, so I am reopening the AFD at this point to gauge a consensus on Ricky Ricotta's Mighty Robot vs. the Unpleasant Penguins from Pluto. MuZemike 15:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hey, good catch. Tagged that one A3. Let's see what happens. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I've declined the A3 speedy. There surely is content there. You're going to need to get a better consensus as to whether or not that article should be deleted outside the speedy deletion criteria, I'm afraid. MuZemike 22:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Fair enough. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:23, 27 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) 19:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trance Metal[edit]

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

An IP changed the date on the ((dated prod)) template, which counts as a contestation of the prod. No mention of this term in Enter Shikari. Looks like original research. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Okay, the entry in Enter Shikari has been taken care of by the same IP, but it is still original research. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly original research and unsourced. FireCrystal (talk) 13:43, 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Post-Industrial-Ambient-Drone-Black Metal. Fences&Windows 00:54, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fail to see how any of those genres are relevant to this genre (though industrial or ambient is probably closest). Plus there's no article but I think you meant any of those genres it could be merged to. However, there is nothing to merge if it can't even be sourced at all. FireCrystal (talk) 21:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my tongue was firmly in my cheek, I was satirising the endless subdivisions of heavy metal. I agree that there's no hope for the article.Fences&Windows 00:11, 26 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 00:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR issues. It's possible that there might be a notable article on this subject some day, but if so, this minimal stub will serve no value as a basis for starting. Ray^Talk 20:00, 26 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaneko Ietada[edit]

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

This is a non-notable samurai, if he even exists. The only sources I'm seeing on him are from wiki mirrors and the only reference provided, "The Samurai Sourcebook" doesn't mention him in the index (I checked through Amazon). Other than that, it reads like it was either made up or original research. Tavix | Talk 21:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Before removing the prod, I verified that he exists through using Google Books (searching for the name without quotes gives a few more hits), so it is definitely not a hoax. I also still don't understand how you can say there is original reseach in the article. How could the author of the article have determined what Kaneko Ietada did or said other than by reading it in a published source (its not like he could have been there and witnessed it himself)? I didn't find any in-depth coverage of him, but I don't have access to the sources listed in the article (The Samurai Sourcebook and Hogen Monogatari). Calathan (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research unless references can be confirmed. --DAJF (talk) 03:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am disturbed that the nominator is questioning the veracity of article without apparently checking Hogen Monogatari, one of the two cited sources. I also do not see what sort of of original research is involved and request clarification. That aside, it seems to me that any warrior considered a supreme embodiment of virtue and prowess by a chronicler writing a century and a half later is *some* sort of notable -- that our guidelines do not explicitly cover this situation demonstrates that the guidelines are not complete. Keep and get someone familiar with the sources to clarify which parts are being cited directly from the Hogen Monogatari. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Google books edition of the only extant translation of the Hogen Monogatari is the sort to display only snippets of search results but that's enough to substantiate Ietada's existence as a player in the Hogen disturbance. This translation is cited by several scholarly works discussing the disturbance that mention him by name, some of which discuss his actions in particular, again only retrievable in snippets. However, I think these are enough to show that the subject is indeed notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Geh. Shows of what comes of searching with terms that are too restricted. Kaneko no Jōrō Ietada is also chronicled in Heike Monogatari, as one of the Kaneko brothers, named in some translations as Ietada of Musashi. Most notably in chapter 11:3, in an incident dramatic enough I remembered it two years after reading it, though not with the names attached. Unfortunately, Google books do not allow access to that chapter of the two main translations, but one does list him in the index. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup. Sounds like this may just require a trip to the library.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:11, 25 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 00:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The coverage found by Quasirandom proves that Kaneko Ietada is notable. The likelihood that more sources (including any written in Japanese) exist is very high, so this article should be kept. A search for "金子家忠", Kaneko Ietada's name, returns 107 results. Some are false positives, such as Comics & Graphic Novels, but perhaps some will provide significant coverage of this samurai. Cunard (talk) 08:10, 26 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. JForget 00:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freacher[edit]

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

Non notable neologism. I could find no RS usage of this term, let alone significant coverage. ThaddeusB (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This neologism belongs on Urban Dictionary. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 11:29, 26 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. JForget 23:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of open source DVD authoring software[edit]

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

Notability failure: Regardless of the fact that this article entirely lacks source, is original research and attempts to promotes an illusion of credibility via weasel words, this article does not discuss its subject at all! While this article is supposed to be a comparison, it is merely an indiscriminate list of insignificant details, which cannot be used to tell how one entry in the article compares to another. Fleet Command (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of nominators arguments. if this was a brand new article, id maybe say keep and allow to develop. each product either needs an article, or references for each fact in the grid. title of article is not very helpful, as this isnt much of a comparison chart.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Usable content has already been merged, so merging is useless. --DanielPharos (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - unref / OR. 7 01:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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