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

The result was snowball keep -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yankees–Giants rivalry[edit]

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

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

Unreferenced rivalry cruft. These two teams have only played 47 games against each other in 110 years, and none of any import in over half a century. Hardly the stuff rivalries are made of to say nothing of having not one reference to back any of the data or assertions put forth in the article. Gateman1997 (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Real historical rivalry. Bad article needing much work, but that's not reason to put the baby in the blender. Carrite (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep – The article as written actually disguises the notability of the topic. Half the page is devoted to meaningless interleague games, and most of the rest is just a laundry list of players. This has some good background information, which is exactly what a rivalry article should contain. I'm going with a weak keep because there's less out there than I expected, but my gut tells me articles are avaliable if you're willing to look hard enough. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but improve I have been working on this the best I can. I don't know much about it, so I tried to put in what I could to make it better. The rivalry was fierce back then. There was an AFD nomination already for this and most people said to keep it. Feel free to access it from the page's discussion page. 161.185.151.150 (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I just added a lot to this thing to make it presentable. Arnabdas (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—this was a fierce rivalry back in the early part of the 20th century, although it tapered off when the Giants moved to San Francisco. This article definitely needs significant amounts of work, but is a worthy subject. –Grondemar 19:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I didn't have the time to improve this article, but I was gonna give it a shot before voting. I see it's already been improved, though it's probably not finished. The old version was poor, this version is better, and the subject is notable. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It now seems to meet the general notability guidelines. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Nothing has changed since the prior deletion discussion for this article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giants yankees rivalry that should have been referenced here, to make the topic less notable. Per the discussion there, this was an extremely notable rivalry, and written about in published sources as such. Just because most of the notable interaction took place years ago is irrelevant - notability is not temporary. And whatever one's opinion of such articles, the rivalry between two teams who played multiple World Series while sharing a stadium, then multiple World Series playing in home stadiums about a mile apart, can be considered "cruft". Rlendog (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason to delete. By this flawed logic, the Subway Series is also "cruft". Don't toss around a word that doesn't apply to a notable article just because you don't like it. Vodello (talk) 06:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep. Per the above keeps. Will someone pls come along and put this AfD out of its misery?--Epeefleche (talk) 02:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 19:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Srinivasan Keshav[edit]

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

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

I do not believe this person passes either the author notability test for writing a book or professor notability test for academic pursuits. Miami33139 (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Gscholar shows papers with citation counts of 2759, 858, 780, 398, 376, 350, 341, 249. h-index is 28. Easily meets #1 of WP:PROF.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:PROF. Hobit (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Quite misguided nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Not that we need more reasons, but the Canada Research Chair is a pass of WP:PROF#C5. And testifying to the U.S. Senate about the cost of wireless messaging services and then being quoted extensively in the NY Times and the Hindu about it also indicates a certain level of notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Citability alone is already sufficient for passing WP:PROF#C1. Also, as D.E. notes, holding a Canada Research Chair is enough to pass of WP:PROF#C5. Nsk92 (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The participants concluded that the subject failed to meet either the general notability guideline or WP:POLITICIAN. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Horning[edit]

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

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

non notable local politician/candidate, fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Bhockey10 (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. - Needs wikification. See debate appearing above for my rationale. Carrite (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notable local politicians can have articles, but require similar notability standards to other, independent, verifiable sources. See WP:POLITICIAN. This subject and other similar ones nominated with this are all localized policial races with very little to no media coverage. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. - Bob Horning is a political figure that is of great importance to our area. He is very notable is his Senate District (Oregon SD16). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwilhelm (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete fails GNG and wp:politician. Dlohcierekim 01:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(The usual outcome for these has been to redirect to the appropriate election. Dlohcierekim 01:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

except the media coverage of these figures is so light there's little to no info on them, and also no wikipedia article on the election they're running in. Bhockey10 (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. never saw that before. Dlohcierekim 03:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails BIO/POLITICIAN and not anywhere near enough coverage to pass GNG from what shows up in a Gnews search. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete so far a candidate with no signficiant coverage, failing WP:POLITICIAN Hekerui (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Stub article with no reliable sources to indicate notabilitiy. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN, should he get elected, then no bar to recreation. Codf1977 (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The participants concluded that the subject failed to meet either the general notability guideline or WP:POLITICIAN. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Thomsen[edit]

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

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

non notable local politician/candidate, fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. Bhockey10 (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Bhockey10 (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Needs wikification. See my rationale under Marilyn Kittelman (above). Carrite (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment Notable local politicians can have articles, but require similar notability standards to other, independent, verifiable sources. See WP:POLITICIAN. If we have articles for all politicians, regardless of notability- then every high school class president should have an article. This subject and other similar ones nominated with this are all localized policial races with very little to no media coverage. Bhockey10 (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -Chuck Thomsen is a political figure that is of great importance to our area. He is very notable is his Senate District (Oregon SD26). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwilhelm (talk • contribs) 21:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet WP:GNG, does not meet WP:politician01:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 01:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as copyvio. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(The usual outcome for these has been to redirect to the appropriate election. Dlohcierekim 01:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

My impression, which could easily be wrong, is that the copyvio requires "hard" deletion. Absent the copyvio, redirect while preserving history (assuming a suitable target exists) would be a preferred option, to allow easier recreation for a winning candidate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are localized politicians with almost no coverage and there isn't an election article to redirect to. Bhockey10 (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Hullaballoo. We keep hx for the GFDL. Is that a factor where it was a copyvio? "hard deletion" sounds like the way to go. @Bhockey. That being the case, I don't feelbad about deleting. Dlohcierekim 03:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment copyvio has been removed. Dlohcierekim 01:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails BIO/POLITICIAN and not anywhere near enough coverage to pass GNG from what shows up in a Gnews search. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN and I can't find substantial independent coverage. Hekerui (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if cannot redirect article about the race. Obviously does not meet WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. No offence to the creator, who was acting in good faith but does not no are rules and culture, but "wikipedia is not a campaign tool." Dlohcierekim 14:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Stub article lacks reliable sources to establish notability. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN, if they get elected then look at re-creation. Codf1977 (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Charles Ward[edit]

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

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

Delete. Subject is not notable. Not a general officer or anything. references are poor. Student7 (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No outstanding achievements or awards. Only "reference" is a tribute by his son. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless there is significant additional notability above what is currently in the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The subject is not notable.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: doesn't satisfy guidance at WP:MILPEOPLE and my searches don't indicate notability in other regards. I'm happy to change my mind if someone can find some more sources that make clear this subject's notability. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, fails WP:MILPEOPLE. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Does not appear to meet any notablity standard. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald Selznick Associates[edit]

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

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

No third-party reliable sources 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 22:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Spam. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam. JJ98 (talk) 03:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not appear to meet the notability requirements. Google news search only shows two pages of passing mentions. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, spam. Nuujinn (talk) 10:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. (non-admin closure) 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 15:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Policarpus Gaddafi Haindongo[edit]

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

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

Non-notable freedom fighter; no sources exist. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 22:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's a complete hoax. I recognised it at the time but decided to see how long an article with the name "Policarpus Gaddafi Haindongo" could survive. Christopher Connor (talk) 23:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as hoax and a big fat TROUTSLAP to Christopher Connor. And the answer: "Nearly a month." Carrite (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Running one of the footnotes comes up with an article, in Dutch or some semblance thereof, detailing a motocycle accident of Lieutenant-Colonel Hidipo Haindongo Policarpus. Carrite (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative Marketing[edit]

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

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

Written as an essay, filled with original research. — Timneu22 · talk 21:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Accessing Internet has become a common phenomenon because innovative technologies like mobile Internet devices, Mobile phones, datacards, handheld game consoles and cellular routers allow users to connect to it anywhere and anytime. Due to e-commerce ,efficient and low-cost advertising and commerce through the Internet, many companies have started growing at a faster rate.... -- Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearwell Systems[edit]

Clearwell Systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

http://wiki.fastmail.fm/index.php?title=Special:Undelete/Clearwell_Systems says:

The following consists of deleted revisions of Clearwell Systems. ... Deletion log 21:36, 18 August 2010 MrElvey (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Clearwell Systems" ‎ (Spam: content was: 'Clearwell’s mission is to deliver an unprecedented level of intelligence from the information captured in email and enable organizations to take act…' (and the only contributor was '[[Special:Contributions/Martinwell) (view/restore)

To restore the page's entire history, leave all checkboxes deselected and click Restore. To perform a selective restoration, check the boxes corresponding to the revisions to be restored, and click Restore. Clicking Reset will clear the comment field and all checkboxes.

Similar at http://wiki.fastmail.fm/index.php?title=Clearwell_Sytems — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs) 2010-08-18 21:43:46

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions.
• Speedy delete. I'm a bit unsure about the nominator's grounds, but this is definitely unambiguous advertising for a behind the scenes business: the Clearwell E-Discovery Platform streamlines the processing, analysis, review and production phases of e-discovery. Clearwell seamlessly integrates with the enterprise's electronic discovery process and does not require any changes to existing file collection and production processes. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: someone else marked it ((Advert|date=August 2009)). I just AfDs it because that seemed correct and a year old and it was brought to my attention cuz some fucker just spammed a wiki I admin with essentially the same content, twice. Seems martinwell is very active - http://clearwellsystems.wikidot.com/start Seems speedyable. THanks for completing the AfD minutae. --Elvey (talk) 04:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:40, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stone-Cup (game)[edit]

Stone-Cup (game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Contested prod, unreferenced, WP:MADEUP Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 21:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete WP:MADEUP: "Stone-Cup was created in 2010 by [two kids]". Would anybody seriously object to this being IAR speedied? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I'm fine with an IAR speedy here. Hobit (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 19:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mastan Ensemble[edit]

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

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

No in-line references, no reason as to why the group is notable. Beeshoney (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete - as this is English wikipedia, even if I could read Persian, there's not one note that is verified or cited which would mean this group passes WP:MUSIC. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and ought to be a speedy keep. The LA Times article, cited as an external link, but functionally a reference, is solid evidence of notability, and ignoring it is good reason to discount or ignore the prior !votes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the band is notable, I used one of the external links from Los Angeles Times as a source. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Parvaz Homay, I think that the band is NOT notable.Farhikht (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Just added the BBC Persian source. with respect to Farhikht (that I consider a well-exprienced editor) that's a enough evidence of notability. Homay is the frontman & the most important member but the other members like Pasha Hanjani took part in The Pulse of Persia (album) and other projects that makes the band notable. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep. The group IS notable, at the very least! This was the short response to User:Beeshoney's assertion. The longer response: those who know Persian music, those who know Rumi and his poetry, etc., will testify that Mastan Ensemble is the best of its kind and generation. Incidentally, the assertion by User:Beeshoney that there were "No in-line references" in the entry at issue contradicts facts on the ground --- one needs only to consult the entry and verify that there are in-line references aplenty. The Ensemble has received uniformly positive reviews wherever they have given live performance --- consult to External-links section of the entry (see e.g. this). Could I respectfully ask User:Beeshoney's expertise regarding Persian Music whereby to undertake such a drastic move as removing the entry at issue? Those who know Persian, can readily testify that Mastan Ensemble has almost perfected the art of Chāmeh Sarā'i (I have described this term in the main text of Mastan Ensemble); the poems accompanying the music of Mastan Ensemble are further of highest quality. One more thing: to my best judgement, the Ensemble has (1) the world's very best Tar player of his generation in the person of Azad Mirzapour (just watch this short piece -- the piece is played superbly; the tuning of the tar for this particular piece is extremely difficult and subtle; a slightly wrong tuning would kill what one calls Zakhmehs (tr: Strikes) in this music, and (2) the world's very best Kamancheh player of his generation in the person of Sina Jahanabadi (just listen to this piece). Already these two great musicians are sufficient proof for the greatness of Mastan Ensemble. --BF 03:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability established with BBC source. VirtualRevolution (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instructure[edit]

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

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

A new editor with the screenname Jaydillinger (talk · contribs) created this AFD page with copypasted rationale of "This article may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion because Non-neutral article on a non-notable software product, referenced only with a link to the author's own blog (the other "references" are a link within Wikipedia and to the homepages of similar companies given as examples) and zero sources found. Next Generation learning Management is non specific and not a differentiator. Company advertising non-encyclopedic. Is a temporary article based on company prominence in space. Please see notability requirements.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability. For valid criteria, see CSD." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I haven't figured it out but there are funny things going on with this article, perhaps significant editing by competitors. This edit in particular appears strange. ElKevbo (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I work for Instructure, and yes, there's something strange going on. This is the second time this page has been stripped of all references and then nominated for deletion. I believe it is the same user, and he appears to have some affiliation with the Gilfus Education Group (Gilfus seems to have some kind of tie to Blackboard, the largest company in the space), as that is where the majority of the original IP address' edits happened (96.255.250.34), and the second time (75.197.194.2) he added a link to Gilfus on Educational Technology before vandalizing the Instructure page. Nothing has changed significantly (other than the addition of new sources and some cleanup by other users, including User:Haakon) since the last nomination for deletion in May... what are the guidelines around repeat nominations? Brian.whitmer (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note your use of the term vandalism... Wikipedia:Vandalism "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see [edit warring Wikipedia:Edit_warring])." --Jaydillinger (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many editors focus on specific articles and topics for editing including specific articles in specific industries. Please be aware that the majority of editing is based on notability requirements. Authors of this article should review: Wikipedia:Notability for requirements. Also please review Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Unless specific Notability can be accomplished this article should be deleted until the article is notable. Please also review: Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not --Jaydillinger (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "...based on prominence in the space" seems like a justification for keeping, not deleting. "zero sources found" is patently false, even after the article was stripped of references. There are multiple sources to both print articles and reputable online eLearning writers. This nomination is by a competitor and I recommend it be cancelled. Brian.whitmer (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "...We need to open this article up to other administrators for comments with a review of notability to determine appropriateness for this article. --Jaydillinger (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Could not find significant coverage by reliable sources to establish notability. References given in page are either not independent reliable sources or unrelated material. Other independent editors should submit Delete or Keep to determine next steps in article status. -- Wikipedia:Notability --Jaydillinger (talk) 21:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The new user Jaydillinger appears to be trying to speedy delete LMS company web sites (see Instructure and also Thinking Cap -- where the speedy delete is a copy-paste of what was put on Instructure's page, and actually applies even less there than it does here). The last time this happened for Instructure it was an IP address whose history was in maintaining the article on a competitor's founder's pages (Stephen Gilfus, Gilfus Education Group). This time the new IP address added a link to that same page to another article, and then nominated this page for speedy deletion. The two seem to be related, and I suspect Jaydillinger may be associated with them as well (I can't prove that, obviously, although this is not a highly edited article so it seems possible, and the edits performed by the user, especially on the Talk:Instructure page are suspect). Brian.whitmer (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - (*Note, I'm a company employee) Multiple news sources cited, as well as a press release covering the Instructure-Turnitin partnership, both of which indicate notability. None of the sources cited are unrelated material and all except the Educause link are independent. Google and Twitter searches bring up plenty of additional results. The article has been worked by multiple editors to remove biased pov and additional unbiased sources have been added since the last nomination, so I believe there is even less reason now to delete than there was before. In my opinion this re-nomination is unfounded. Brian.whitmer (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - Gosh, where do we start with this one? Started by the acknowledge co-creator of the company (should have been deleted as WP:BIAS); and then nominated by Kiteinthewind under WP:CSD G11, which was contested by article creator/co-co-founder. Since then has been an ongoing edit war between company employees and clear and obvious competitor-editors! Nominated twice for deletion, this is third debate. Lets get back to basics: doesn't presently meet WP:GNG or specifically WP:ORG, delete it! When they do something of significance and passes WP:ORG, then I would support inclusion. Rgds --Trident13 (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the second discussion. See the handy box at the top of this very page. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 00:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the only item from the list of references (as of this version) is the Desert news item. The others either establish facts but do not mention Instructure (e.g., Chronicle of Higher Education), or are not a reliable source (such as press release or blog). That's not sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
• Delete. Yet another non-consumer software business that feels the need to call its product a "management system"; advertising and not notable: an educational software company that provides a hosted (Software as a Service) learning management system for post-secondary learning institutions called Canvas. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for reasons given already. Does not pass WP:GNG in particular. The main editor's blatant bias does not help either, although I commend him for being straightforward about it. Haakon (talk) 22:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, coverage is from blogs, press releases or consists of passing mention. Not notable. Nuujinn (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TesseracT (band)[edit]

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

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

Non notable band fail WP:BAND Mo ainm~Talk 20:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Mo ainm~Talk 20:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the article did have a cite to the Washington Post but that proved to be bogus. Eeekster (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non notable band fail wp:gng. VirtualRevolution (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. TessaracT lacks non-trivial RS coverage and fails WP:BAND. • Gene93k (talk) 14:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. its snowing Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mic Neumann[edit]

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

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

I can't find a single reliable source for this individual, I searched for both Michael Neumann and Mic Neumann. There are a few directories that list that he worked on a TV show but that would lead to a mention on an article on the show. Fails WP:BIO and as far as I can determine also fails WP:V. Cameron Scott (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree with the nominator. The subject of this article does not meet the requirements of WP:BIO and the assertions made do not satisfy WP:V. MtD (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no evidence given of satisfying WP:Notability, or even WP:Verifiability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Don't see anything that satisfies WP:BIO notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per above. Fails WP:BIO. Also, the article should be SALTED to prevent recreation, as the subject of the article has been editing it as a vanity piece according to discussion at AN/I. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt per nom and AN/I discussion. Mauler90 _talk 18:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete--a few passing mentions revealed by Google News do not add up to notability. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-per the above, and salt as well. Heiro 19:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt - not notable, self-promotion. Yworo (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the subject fails WP:ANYBIO. elektrikSHOOS 02:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to close early per WP:SNOW. elektrikSHOOS 02:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion determined that the subject did not meet notability guidelines. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 20:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MicroVolts[edit]

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

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

Non-notable MMORPG, currently at closed beta version. Trivial third-party coverage. Delete; previously speedily deleted by me. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep There are 4 sources in the article. One looks like a good review, two others look to be press release-based (at a guess) and one looks okayish. Likely to see more coverage (good or bad) shortly and meets the letter of WP:N. Sourcing is very much on the weak side though. Hobit (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two links are just press releases; the other two are not so much reviews as just overviews of the game features. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete routine reviews show existence not notability. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Just as a note, routine coverage does indeed meet the requirements of WP:N. Nothing in that guideline I'm aware of distinguishes routine coverage from any other kind of coverage. If the coverage for _this_ article is enough to meet WP:N is certainly debatable, but your reason for your !vote seems to lack any policy/guideline based reasoning. Hobit (talk) 18:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources mentioned cover neither WP:N nor WP:RS. Only one of those sites has any editorial standards, none cover the topic extensively enough to meet WP:GNG, as the source has to pas WP:RS before being considered for WP:N. --Teancum (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per my reply above. --Teancum (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:N. Lacks "significant coverage" to establish notability. Article appears to consist primarily of original research. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks coverage fails WP:GNG Codf1977 (talk) 17:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NewsIndexer[edit]

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

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

Indexing system with no evidence of notaility. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Unambiguous advertising as well: NewsIndexer is unique in that it draws on a taxonomy of news topics and provides ancillary editorial services for constant updating and customization for its clients. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The advertising is fixable, but no plausible evidence of notability is given.AndrewWTaylor (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen v Players 2010 match[edit]

Gentlemen v Players 2010 match (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Delete. Fails WP:Notability and WP:CRIN. The article is about a one-off exhibition match involving numerous people who are not first-class cricketers. The claim that it is resurrection of the former Gentlemen v Players fixture is nonsense and there is no connection other than the title. --Jack | ^{talk page} 18:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with no actual connection to the Gentlemen v Players matches the idea that it is notable as the first T20 of this saga is redundant. Doesn't have anything to set itself apart. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the rerasons given above. Scores of charity exhibition matches are played each season, and this match has no greater claims to notability than do those. JH (talk page) 19:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely agree with JH.. Chris (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this match is notable as its first time in 48 years anyone has played in a pro-am format reviving the spirit of the Gentlemen v Players match. Many Gentlemen v Players matches were exhibition matches and this one no different from the others in that respect. The differences are this is a new format with inner city kids being given a platform to excel under the banner of an historic format and as such should be encouraged. Perhaps the current page could be kept edited to explain the differences with the old format. (n.b. Added by User:Csh24).
  • I don't think 48 years is a particularly long time, and the "spirit" is not the same as a matched genuinely linked to the older G v P matches, also it doesn't necessarily inherit its notability. Giving "inner city kids" a platform to excel is all very well but that does not a notable topic make. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would just point out that the the original GvP matches were not exhibition games: they were all first-class fixtures and, although the Gentlemen often fielded a weak team, it was one of the standout fixtures in every season. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It may be a noble cause, but very few are notable. – ukexpat (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and the sensible words by JH.—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non notable match as per the reasons above, also no scorecard on CricketArchive - so must have been a non notable match!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, just one of many charity matches played every year and in no way connected to the original G v P matches, well apart from the name. ukexpat (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Johnlp (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily redirected per discussion to the restored, deprecated category (without prejudice to RFD, but I continue to maintain that because CAT:TEMP is linked in so many deletion log actions, it should be kept in some form to provide explanation to users seeking one). –xeno^talk 18:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CAT:TEMP[edit]

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

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

This is a non-article in the article namespace. I tried to speedy it, but User:Xeno rejected. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 18:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - First, see Wikipedia:Pseudo-namespaces. Second, CAT:TEMP formerly redirected to Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, and was linked countless times in deletion logs. The former category provided an explanation of the deletion; it has since been deleted, which is why an explanation is provided at the page in the "pseudo-namespace". An alternative would be to restore the category, tag it as deprecated, and redirect CAT:TEMP back there. –xeno^talk 18:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to the category would be the only viable option. Just because it was linked countless times in deletion logs does not mean it should be kept. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 18:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the target, can we close this AfD and redirect? –xeno^talk 18:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a plan. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 18:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neuralitic[edit]

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

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

Non-notable company. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as advertising. Carrite (talk) 01:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a provider of mobile data intelligence (MDI) solutions. Your guess is as good as mine. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that there is an entire article on mobile data intelligence, I don't think that lack of clarity is the problem here. Just lack of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gaah. Another in my sights. Sometimes, you feel like the little Dutch boy.... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems to be A7, frankly. — Timneu22 · talk 12:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cisne, Illinois. Wrong forum, but redirecting to the town seems to be a sensible solution. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cisne[edit]

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

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

"Cisne" is Spanish for "swan". Ruodyssey (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Why do we need a spanish article on english wikipedia? JeremyMcClean (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • When it was an article, it wasn't in Spanish. Uncle G (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, and that's since been moved to Cisne, Illinois. - Ruodyssey (talk) 22:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Incredibly trivial but also incredibly pointless, no reason to use non-English terms as redirects unless the non-English term has some common usage in at least one English dialect (not creole). - OldManNeptune (talk) 18:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cisne, Illinois -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That works, too. - Ruodyssey (talk) 18:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I assume there's only one Cisne and it does appear that this was originally intended as Cisne, Illinois. Support redirect to that article, makes sense. - OldManNeptune⚓ (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I know, yes. There's also a Cisnes, Chile on the Cisnes River. - Ruodyssey (talk) 11:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Point Anime Convention[edit]

Castle Point Anime Convention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD  • AfD statistics)

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

Castle Point Anime Convention is only a one-day convention with a relatively low attendance for the New York City area. No reliable sources have been posted to the page to establish notability since the notability warning was posted back in April 2010. PatrickD (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep A convention bringing thousands of attendees and having realiable third party resources is notable to me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Delete After reading below and looking for the sources here and turning up nothing I have changed my desision. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks coverage by reliable, third-party sources. Since this convention is hosted by the Stevens Institute of Technology, the institute's student newspaper, The Stute, will have strong ties to the event and therefore cannot be used as third-party source. Also, The Stute's level of reliability is undetermined at this time, so it should be treated as a self-published source at best. The rest of the sources are links to convention directories or databases, which does not confer notability, and a press release from the convention. —Farix (t | c) 12:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Farix (t | c) 17:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note about relisting: Apparently, this discussion was not listed at WP:AFD. This has now been corrected. —Farix (t | c) 17:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find any information published by reliable independent sources. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sources are a student newspaper and several directory sites which list every convention regardless of size or notability. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so this doesn't come up later, there is an ANN source for this but it appears to be a copy of the official press release, not their own coverage. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Those sources look sufficient. Shimeru 16:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Chitty[edit]

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

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

Previously failed PROD. Unreferenced BLP for almost 2 years. Barely notable person, with very few personal details, at best should be a redirect to something a Paul Simon related page. The-Pope (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Unreference BLP, and fails WP:ANYBIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremyMcClean (talk • contribs) 18:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Now, I know it's an unreferenced BLP, but that in itself is not a reason to delete. Having read WP:BLP fairly closely, it gives a lot of weight to the fact that there should be nothing contentious in a BLP, and I don't think there is here. WP:BASIC says A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. Now, if you type "Kathy Chitty" into Google you come up with lots of Paul Simon sites, all of which seem to verify what is written here, and which I would say counts as multiple independent sources. Furthermore, I think if anybody has a copy of this book I think we could put in a reliable source; there are also many other books about Simon which might provide enlightnment (and which I also don't have). Fundamentally you know, I don't like seeing an article which many wikieditors have worked on for nearly two years deleted. Chris (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Absolutely not a speedy situation here. Better get some footnotes on there, though. I found the article interesting and the subject inclusion-worthy. Carrite (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Here are a couple of viewable books at Google Books that appear to verify much of the content of the article.[8][9]. The content certainly seems worthwhile for inclusion somewhere. It's not clear to me, though, if the appropriate place is a separate article or at Paul Simon.--Arxiloxos (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are apparently sources. . Simon is a significant enough artist that people who are the inspiration of his music can be notable DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment having recently been involved in a borderline notable (from a non-Australian viewpoint) person was deleted primarily because she contacted Jimbo to do so (and I will admit that it did have some (reliably sourced) tabloid-like negative aspects), I wonder if having (unreferenced) comments like "Kathy is a very private person; all attempts by the press to cajole information or her whereabouts out of Simon have failed" and "Kathy was quite shy and wanted no part of the success and fame that awaited Simon" should be taken into account. I'm would surmise that the subject wouldn't really be happy with having the article - but probably doesn't have Jimbo's contact details or know that the article exists. At very least any unreferenced personal details must be removed, but I'll wait until the AfD is decided.The-Pope (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She is a person who people know of, even though they have never met her, talked or listened to her, or seen her. Even though the information contained in the article about Kathy has been public for decades, no one is known to have contacted her or intruded her privacy. Yet Paul Simon has million of fans all over the world who at some point of their interest in Paul Simon's biography want to know a little more about the Kathy of 'Kathy's song' and 'America'. I think Wikipedia should be a source for these people, and should care to write an article that respects Kathy's desire to shield her privacy. I think the present article does just that. A definite Keep.

Mcouzijn (talk) 23:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Miranda[edit]

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

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

another poorly sourced, and probably not notable "mobster" BLP. I'll hold off nominating too many till I see what people think. But help reviewing these would be appreciated. Scott Mac 15:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete - Unsourced BLP. May or may not be worthy of inclusion, but this is unfootnoted and has to go... Carrite (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, no coverage in mainstream media I can find. Nuujinn (talk) 10:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank D'Amato[edit]

Frank D'Amato (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Basically not notable - small time crook with some convictions. In addition, this is a BLP with poor sourcing.

If anyone is interested in helping, we've got scores of "crime family" BLPs in the attached categories, most are of questionable notability, and many are also sourced from primary sources (DOJ inmate locators) and court-transcripts reproduced on fanboy sites. When I say lots, I mean lots. A review is essential (taking into account heightened BLP standards since many were created) and a clear-our IMO desirable. Scott Mac 15:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Myself, I'm less concerned with matters of notability and use of "primary sources" than I am with UNSOURCED BLPs in this area. Attack those first, assuming you have a queue. Carrite (talk) 16:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as article fails notability criteria for perpetrators. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. The event is very notable, but the person is notable only in connection to the event. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Harman[edit]

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

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

OK. This will be contentious, but I think this is a classic WP:BLP1E

The Abu Graib prisoner abuse is notable and noted elsewhere. But is each of several US reservists convicted worthy of a negative BLP? I can't see any other conditions where someone given a 6month sentence and famous for nothing but the crime would get a bio. As I say, the event is notable, the perpetrators are not individually notable.

There may be other related articles worth adding to this.Scott Mac 14:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Harman has significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent news sources, stretching from 2003 when the actions in question took place until the present, shown by 1550 instances of coverage at Google News archive . In 2010 alone, so far, she has 32 instances of news coverage per Google News archive, proving the continuing interest in and coverage of her actions and their consequences. Google Book Search shows 527 hits for Sabrina Harman. According to one extended review of Harman's life in a book, she was interviewed by CNN in 2004 and by the news program 20/20 in 2005, which is not the behavior I would expect of a person seeking to "disappear" from public notice. She is given prominent coverage in a number of books about women in modern warfare, such as [10]. Her tearful apology at her trial is cited as a model of an effective apology in the book "Effective Apology: Mending Fences, Building Bridges, and Restoring Trust(2009)" pages 69-70, showing her continuing importance in our culture. Harman receives extended coverage in the high school history textbook "Understanding American Government, Alternate Edition (2009)" page 403, showing that she clearly satisfies WP:BIO more convincingly than 90% of the persons with Wikipedia biographies. The nominator says one reason to delete is that she just got a 6 month sentence, but others got sentences of ten years and three years. "The Lucifer Effect(2008)" page 273 by psychologist Phil Zimbardo says Harman got the 6 month sentence because of evidence presented of prior acts of kindness toward Iraqis, which partially offset her improper actions toward prisoners, such as attaching wires to the hooded man standing on the box in the classic photo. The balance of good versus evil done by a person resulting in a particular sentence in no way is the proper basis to judge notability of a criminal. This is not just some embarrassing incident which the world will forget if the Wikipedia article about the individual is removed, so BLP1E is not that relevant. Edison (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, but most of these sources just name her in the context of discussing the incidents. As for the "interview" your source says "a brief interview was published (CNN) after she was charged". That's just a snippet in the newscycle not really evidence of courting public notice. What the loss by replacing this with a redirect to the article on the incident, the impact, and the resulting trials?--Scott Mac 15:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You omitted to mention the interview with 20/20 in 2005, also covered in the citation. There is no policy or guideline which limits Wikipedia to a single article about every individual related to a notable event when some of the individuals satisfy WP:BIO. Harman has 80 instances of coverage in books just in 2009-2010, showing it was not just "a snippet in the news cycle" in 2003. If you wish to argue for merging the articles, AFD is not the proper way to do it. See Wikipedia:Merging. The torturers were not the same, they were not interchangeable. They had different backgrounds, they engaged in different actions, they received different sentences, and their legacy in our culture is different. We are not limited to one article on all the athletes playing for a professional sports team, or all the musicians in a band, even though in those two cases the individuals actions are more tightly directed and they function as more of a clear team. That is not our policy on biographies. Edison (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was arguing for deletion. However, I'm listening to your case now. I think the questions needs to be what's a) the best organisation of the material for us b) fair to the subject of the BLP, who has the rest of her life ahead of her. Screaming about policy and proceedure doesn't get us far. As I say, I'm open to thinking. (BTW, it may be your culture, it certainly isn't mine).--Scott Mac 16:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I felt this one deserved more than usual consideration. However, the sole sound argument for keeping this page is that the incident the subject is associated with he strongly notable, but that in a way biases sourcing since most of the are generally about the Abu Ghraib incident with her name mentioned, or a story about convictions which are only significant in context of that. BLP1E does indeed apply, in my opinion. Specific comments I wish to respond to:

"The balance of good versus evil done by a person resulting in a particular sentence in no way is the proper basis to judge notability of a criminal."

It is impossible to measure or quantify either good or evil, assuming you could even create such a duality for the purposes of a Wikipedia deletion debate. However, it is a reasonable factor that she received a conviction that is otherwise minor and only gains any attention due to association with Abu Ghraib.

"This is not just some embarrassing incident which the world will forget if the Wikipedia article about the individual is removed"

I can only assume "this" refers to the Abu Ghraib incident, which is not up for deletion. That article has a fairly assured future at Wikipedia. However, the individual herself is of almost zero historical notability, nor does her biography play any factor in the events. I ask in all seriousness, does the fact that she managed a pizzeria truly matter to the events she was a part of? At all? The preceding information regarding her family seems like it is attempting to establish some pathology in the subject, but without citation to show that this is the case it too is simply trivia and possibly even weaseling in some armchair psychology. The rest of the article is nothing that wouldn't be served better under the Abu Ghraib article, if it deserves to be mentioned at all (that's a debate for the editors of that article to decide). Bottom line, I don't feel we are attempting to expunge the past here, since there would likely be little objection to mentioning her within the Abu Ghraib article, but she does not merit a separate article.

I feel I should point out that there are countless articles on Wikipedia about undisputably notable events, deeds, or creations/inventions which mention persons who are noteworthy enough to mention within that article but not at all notable enough to create a complete separate article about. This is one of those cases. - OldManNeptune (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse per WP:BLP1E. IMO, only Charles Graner and Lynndie England merit their own articles. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect she is only notable because of the singular event, that is where she recieves her notability.Sadads (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom and WP:BLP1E. I agree that in the scope of her life, she is notable only for the one event, which is covered significantly on other articles. bahamut0013^words_deeds 14:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still A Nigga[edit]

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

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

Non-notable single. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 14:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't see any links except for lyrics pages, so I'm assuming to delete per nom. Bigtop みんな空の下 (トーク) 16:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing notable and worthy of being an article. JeremyMcClean (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NozAmi[edit]

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

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

No third-party reliable sources found. May be promotional in nature as well. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 14:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Quite a common misspelling for Nozomi. Bigtop みんな空の下 (トーク) 16:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. Carrite (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, misspelling of Nozomi, which is a non-notable brand of inhaled oil. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable product. JFW | T@lk 17:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invasion OS[edit]

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

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

Non-notable OS; search for reliable sources failed. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 14:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Response to 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) - you haven't searched deep enough. The new version of OS is comming and article links are included in every release so people who download it could know more about it. This article should not be deleted. On the other hand, non-notable os is not an excuse to delete the article. 18:01, 2010.08.18 User:Dancing Raccoon. —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Would be happy to withdraw if sources are provided. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 15:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If the operating system was only released a month ago, it's good evidence that it isn't notable; and lack of notability is indeed a reason to delete the article. (See the notability guidelines.) Wikipedia is meant to be a compendium of existing knowledge, not a means to make something known. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just another Linux clone (openSuse) claiming to be for the average user (and most Linux clones claim to do this nowadays...). Dime a dozen. No sources, nothing on google, fails WP:GNG. Ryan Norton 20:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it's that necessary, if it's THAT hard to keep it here, if it makes you jealous that someone can actualy do a Linux clones, then fine, delete it. One person might mean nothing, but the reputation of Wikipedia falls in front of my eyes :) Author of Article. 02:09, 2010.08.19 —Preceding undated comment added 23:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It's too bad the reputation of Wikipedia falls in your view, perhaps you should start out by editing articles unrelated to your own work; you might end up changing your opinion. Wikipedia isn't a place for promoting stuff, its just an encyclopedia that also happens to be a wiki. There are plenty of other places you can discuss this new Linux clone, and maybe one day it will take off in some fashion, be historically notable, and thus have an article here. Ryan Norton 23:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable. Nuujinn (talk) 10:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Centropy (physics)[edit]

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

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

Seems to be a gibberish-like non-notable fringe theory from a single author, sourced from what looks like a self-published book. The term has some false positive on Google Scholar (used as a variable name, for example) but nothing related to the article or that seems to establish notability. Cyclopia^talk 13:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I can't find any evidence of notability. --Steve (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Entropy really does not have a negative (which this purports to be). The closest things would be information and Gibbs free energy which are not mentioned here. The "spatial separation of molecules engendered by centrifugal forces" seems like a very poor attempt at a definition for entropy. JRSpriggs (talk) 17:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:Fringe The article does not contain the elements that would allow a fringe theory to be included in Wikipedia. Dethlock99 (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as patent nonsense. The author takes a 19th century concept (disgregation), misunderstands it, and then goes straight off into left field writing about their own concept based on that misunderstanding. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The version at the time of nomination is here. They've since altered the lede to remove mention of centrifugal force, but still don't seem to understand the concept of entropy (or negentropy, which they also reference). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as drivel. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete, and possibly redirect to negentropy, since apparently this refers to the same concept. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  They don't refer to the same concept. Negentropy is the difference between an object's entropy and that of its environment (usually in the context of a living creature or other system that expends energy to shuffle entropy elsewhere). Originally it referred to the amount of entropy exported, but apparently it was redefined recently to refer to the difference in specific entropy. The "Centropy" article starts with a claim that entropy is related to centrifugal force on a molecular level and goes downhill from there. Centropy's claim that it means the same thing as "negentropy" is just one more piece of nonsense in a nonsense-rich article. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: looks like the product of some gibberish generator. DVdm (talk) 08:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a lot of fun with that link! Dethlock99 (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - insufficient evidence of notability. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as patent nonsense. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: creator Weltherr (talk · contribs) of this article now indefinitely blocked for sockduckery. DVdm (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I don't see how this affects the AfD. The content of the Centropy article wasn't related to the original block, so the only substantial effect is to make it difficult for them to attempt to improve the article to address objections. If this wasn't a WP:SNOW close, I'd actually ask for a temporary unblock for that purpose. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 07:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I had a run-in with this editor (an anon Russian who claims to have a verbal IQ of 270 something) a few weeks back; and ended up doing some research on the term (centropy). His general aim to promote a sort of physics-concept based God-theory that he had conceived. In any event, this users intentions aside, the term centropy and ‘centropic’ does have certain pre-Internet usage, in various niche circles (new-age, new-science, etc.), e.g. 1, 2, as well as usage in Google Books and Google scholar. The 1999 Encyclopedia of Complementary Health Practice, for example, has a three-page article on ‘centropic integration’. Although I have yet to find the actual book that Bois is said to have coined the term, he does discuss entropy in several of his books, which lends probability that the term did come from him as the Simon reference states. I’ll add in a stub summary to see if this helps. --Libb Thims (talk) 11:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Would you be willing to create a (referenced) stub article in your user-space or other suitable scratch-space? This would make it easier to compare old and new content, and you've managed to actually collect a significant number of candidate references. "Delete without prejudice for re-creation" is what usually happens when an article is gibberish but there's the possibility of making a decent article about a subject, though that would hinge on the references satisfying WP:RS and the well-referenced article still being about an adequately noteworthy subject. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already spent more time than I would have liked on this term (I really don't like to contribute more than one sentence stubs to Wikipedia anymore). It's clear that the term has a 1980s (or earlier) usage, e.g. here (a 1989 book) its described as one of the laws of the universe, opposite to entropy. I still, however, am having difficulty in tracking down the actual book (or article) that the term was coined or first used. As far as I have been able to track down so far, the term is largely the product of Irving Simon and before him Joseph Bois (as claimed by Simon).

The term "centropy" itself is really nothing of note, outside of its marginal usage, here and there, in certain discussion circles. It is synonym of a variety of terms (all conceived by different people, each with their own following) that all have the same general meaning: Anti-entropy, Disentropic, Ectropy, Ektropy, Antientropism, Entropy reduction, Entropy reversal, Extropy, Inverse entropy, Local entropy decrease, Entropy islands, Low entropy, Negative entropy, Negentropy, Psychic entropy, neg-entropy, Neguentropy, Syntropy, Syntropic, Telenomic entropy, Genopsych, namely a verbal way to argue out of the Planck-Boltzmann view of the second law as "systems tend towards disorder" so as to explain evolution and the ordering effect of humanity. Good luck. --Libb Thims (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok; thanks for your work on this. I don't get the impression that any of us feel particularly inclined to write an article on the topic, so "delete without prejudice for recreation" should be sufficient (this AfD page will stay, so anyone wanting to build a new article can follow up on the links you provided). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FK3 – Communicating Innovation[edit]

FK3 – Communicating Innovation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Looks like a minor advertising agency using Wikipedia for marketing purposes, a brief scan suggests little evidence of WP:N Le Deluge (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. Unambiguous advertising or promotion: an independently-owned full service marketing communications agency... helps "brands communicate the benefits of their innovations". So tagged. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While not overly blatant advertising, it would still require an almost-complete overhaul, and the sources don't appear to be particularly indicative of "significant coverage," given that some don't actually mention "Fir Tex" or "Fir Vest" and that some are press releases. —fetch·comms 03:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fir Tex[edit]

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

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

Article is simple advertisement for a product which also has no claims to notability. It has no independent references and claims made for product cannot be verified and are unsubstantiated. References, that I have removed, refer to the company's own web-site which use quasi scientific gobbledegook, which has no meaning, to sell a product. The fact that Red Bull have been persuaded (?) is no reason for Wikipedia to be duped. This article was tagged for speedy delete, was deleted but then restored at the request of the original editor  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   11:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Blatant advertising, and a likely hoax. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. Nothing more I can say. Doc Quintana (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC) Keep I'm fine with the rewrite. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment \Keep While I was the original creator of the page, I was adding it on behalf of User:Dicky747. The text I 'wrote' was mainly from various failed AFC submissions, and a userspace draft. I requested that it be restored simply on the grounds that it didn't look like unambiguous advertising, but as I noted in my message to the deleting admin, it did have a primary source problem. If I could fix the primary source problem and shorten to remove the apparent likeness to an advert, I would do so. Then the only remaining issue would be the notability, which I guess will ultimately decided by the outcome of this AFD. Thanks,Acather96 (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It may be worth noting that Dicky747 noted above as the instigating author has only edited this article and talk pages associated with to such an extent that there is a risk that one might consider whether there is COI here.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as advertising. Carrite (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment esp for closing admin I initially deleted this article when it was called Fir-Tex as an A7. Arbitrarily0 (talk · contribs) restored and userified to Dicky474's userspace. This draft was then restored to the mainspace, and then nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fir-Tex, where it was deleted, then restored for userfication, then deleted again by Cirt (talk · contribs) in Feb this year. The last deleted version of Fir-Tex was longer than this version, and had more external links. I've added them here, but make no comment on their notability, as I don't have time to check atm, and can't remember what I thought last time. There's more info in my talk archives if you want to search for it.
  • Fir-Tex website
  • Firvest for athletes
  • Biological activities caused by far-infrared radiation
  • Test results by Dutch Handbal team
  • Test results by Dutch Olympic Committee (NOC-NSF) ^{[dead link]}
  • Test results from Monique van der Vorst, Dutch athlete of the year ^{[dead link]}
  • Dutch biggest newspaper about Fir-Tex
  • Turkish news and football national team player Arda about Fir-Tex
  • "El 'chaleco mágico' llega a MotoGP" in the most widely-circulated newspaper in Spain El País about the "magic vest"
  • Dutch news television SBS6 in prime time about Fir-Tex
  • Dutch Television news EditieNL about Fir-Tex
  • No idea if any of this is helpful, but it's worth bearing in mind. GedUK  09:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will fix the article by 19:00 UTC Acather96 (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I hope this rectifies the problems presented.Acather96 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Questions
  • As I see remarks about no independent references, could someone then explain to me if the Dutch Olympic Committee and Dutch Handball Federation are no independent references? Basically you are saying that they are thus not independent, correct?
  • Other question: Do you really think that an organisation such as RedBull Racing, with more then 400 persons working for 2 cars, would go into an innovation partnership with FIR-TEX if they had not tested the product? This is not sponsorhip, which is a totally different story, no money is involved! I hope to get answers to this questions, thank you Flying Dutchman 22:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicky747 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Article would need to be rewritten from the ground up to maintain NPOV. Article also lacks "significant coverage" in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:N. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It is advertising that would need a major re-write to fix, have big questions with regard to notability as well. Codf1977 (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Advertising-language in the article is not egregious to the extent requiring deletion. The links procured by User: Ged UK appear to establish the notability of the product.--PinkBull 23:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete under G11- Unambiguous Advertising, Article would require fundamental rewrite to bring up to par. Mr. R00t ^Talk 00:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I have reviewed the sources posted by Ged UK and the sources in the article and have been unable to find significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. Many of the sources provided fail to even mention "Fir Tex", while the rest are either press releases or passing mentions. An article being promotional is not a reason in itself for deletion, but when there are no third-party reliable sources that provide nontrivial coverage about the topic, the article should be deleted for failing Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I note that I have reviewed the sources located at Google News Archive and have found that they pertain to companies that share the same name as this one. Some of the sources are about this company, but all are press releases or unreliable. Cunard (talk) 01:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 19:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leif Conradi[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE in that this amateur athlete only competed at the Juniors level, never at the highest amateur level (national or Olympic competition). Also, despite the single reference provided, no internet search can find any verification of this information. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom JeremyMcClean (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - There is no coverage about him in reliable sources to meet general notability. His competitions appear only to be youth level events. And although winning the Norwegian youth championship for 3 years running (if true, as it is outsourcedunsourced) is admirable, it does not establish him as competing at a top level in his sport. I checked the FIS database for his record but there is no entry for him. I happen to know that Steve Collins competed during that time period, so I checked and there is a record for him, so the FIS ski jump competitor database does appear to go back that far in its records. This would indicate that he never competed internationally. -- Whpq (talk) 16:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, never competed on high level. Geschichte (talk) 10:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all per WP:SNOW. This blocked user has used sockpuppet accounts to create and recreate articles about non-notable footballers. As they all fail to meet the GNG they will be deleted. Woody (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nico Yennaris[edit]

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

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

Contested PROD, no reason given though. Youth footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has yet to appear in a fully-professional competition. Also fails WP:GNG due to a lack of any significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 09:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they too fail the same criteria:

Ignasi Miquel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cedric Evina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sam Mantom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Romaine Sawyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sead Hajrović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Roarie Deacon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – could not find any details of appearances for Burton Albion as infobox suggests. --Jimbo^[online] 09:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All these articles created by same user who appears to be a SOCK of a blocked user who created multiple non-notable (typically reserve/youth team) player articles, and then, after initial articles were deleted largely as "no appearance" ATHLETE failures he began adding false appearance information to info boxes. User ignored all advice and attempts to communicate. I haven't had a proper look at all of them yet, but a quick glance shows very much similar MO. Shame really, potentially could have been a good contributor if handled differently.--ClubOranje^T 12:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. More of the same, sadly. Not one of them passes either WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG. These can probably be speedied under CSD G5. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. I've just removed copyvio of the various clubs' website profiles from each of them, so there's not much text left in any, and some of that is invented. None has played in a fully-pro competition, despite what it claims in the articles. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Fails WP:ATHLETE JeremyMcClean (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. GiantSnowman 18:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. None of them passes either WP:NSPORTS or WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Lin[edit]

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

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

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