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

The result was Withdrawing nomination she actually meets WP:MUSIC. LibStar (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Svetlana Navasardyan[edit]

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

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. hardly anything in gnews which is a bit surprising since the article claims she has performed in some English speaking countries. would reconsider if someone searches in Armenian or Russian but no article exists for her in these langauges. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. No rationale has been given for deletion and no one other than the nominator has suggested deletion. (non-admin closure) Blodance the Seeker 02:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

H2O Audio[edit]

H2O Audio (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)

• Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• My reasons why I wrote this article and find it to be notable and Wiki-worthy

  I fully understand the reasoning behind not allowing every company to post a company profile, and the need to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic and free of advertising. However, I think a company take makes the only deep dive case for ipods and iphones is worth noting, because if you're a diver, especially a technical diver who travels to deep depths, you may have to spend HOURS underwater at decompression stops and this invention allows a diver to watch a movie or listen to music to pass the time. Also, inventing and patenting something like the Commander Scroll Wheel that conducts the electricity needed to operate a touch sensitive scroll wheel on devices like an ipod through a hard case and on to the device while maintaining full waterproof integrity I think is pretty amazing and note worthy. There are a few companies out there that produce waterproof ipod accessories, but none of them are going about it in the same way, or have created such notable inventions as H2O Audio. This is shown by the 5 patents that they hold and also by various reviews and write-ups on significant tech and consumer websites, magazines and journals. I feel that the article is written in a fair unbiased tone that doesn't state whether the products are good or bad, but rather that they are an interesting invention. I also feel this article doesn't promote the company in any way, but rather just explains how such unique inventions were derived and how they are being used today. I welcome ANY feedback I can get on how to make this article better, and thank everyone who has put the time in to help. DanaS (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)DanaS[reply]

• Keep: There seems to be sufficient independent coverage to satisfy the notability guideline. --Slashme (talk) 14:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. I'll first note that there isn't a rationale given for why this article is being nominated for deletion. That somebody tagged it for speedy deletion and it was contested is not a reason for deletion. After digging int he article history, I'm assuming it is on notability grounds. The references provided in the article do not do a good job of establishing notability. The US Patent Office does nto establish notability. Neither does Michael Phelps facebook page, nor Laird Hamilton's website. I'll also note that they aren't even reliable sources. However, they've received coverage in Macworld, LA Times, WCBD, and other minor coverage such as [1]. Not a trememdous amount, but enough to estalish notability for me. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Whittemore-Goad[edit]

Andrea Whittemore-Goad (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)

Subject is not notable apart from her illness and her parents, the article is actually more about her parents, suggest a merge or a redirect to either the parents or the illness or the medical center her parents have opened. Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Subject has for all practical purposes become the "face" of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), at least in North America, as the only patient I'm aware of to be interviewed and her photograph depicted in major media, including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. This coverage alone places her in a category with other famous illness representatives such as Gaetan Dugas and Ryan White. In addition, the subject is not merely a "girl with an illness", as stated elsewhere by the listing editor, Off2riorob: she is a 31-year-old woman who has been (and is) an active participant in CFS research and treatment advocacy. She would also appear to be the most prominent individual to have taken the experimental (and now rejected) proposed CFS drug Ampligen and to discuss her experiences with the drug publicly. No article on the subject could avoid mentioning her wealthy and influential parents, as they have founded a notable and controversial research institute because of the subject's experience, an endeavour in which the subject has also participated. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As far as I can see, this article is just another vehicle to add WP:COATRACK criticism of Dr Peterson and her father (which is on this page) as there is no controversy around Andrea herself. Yes, she's been interviewed a few times because of her association with her parents, but does this make her notable enough for multiple editors to want to spend a lot of time validating the content of other contributions? Without the scrutiny of multiple editors, a single active editor is largely free from the proper Wikipedia checks and balances on an article like this. -- TerryE (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Andrea Whittemore-Goad" currently has 7,120 google hits; "Andrea Whittemore-Goad" -daughter has 70. -- TerryE (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Terry here, this seems to be the unneeded expansion of a group of articles, the subject individually doesn't appear to be notable enough to meet WP:BIO to warrant her own biography. She is mentioned in the citations as a side issue to the main story which is the illness or the medical center or the parents. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Puzzled I'm missing something here. The article does make reference to her parents, but this section does seem to demonstrate notability in a way that goes beyond her merely being ill, but being a notable spokesperson about her illness. What am I missing? --Dweller (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, so let me see if I have this correct, woman gets yuppie flu, her parents have an involvement in ME charities, this makes the woman notable? Has she found a cure for yuppie flu? No. Having read the sources I find that the NYT article has a passing mention of Andrea and none of the others are relevant to her, but are relevant to ME. If you want I can gut this article to show you want can be proven. Redirect to the syndrome, and merge the information to that article about the drug trial and possible viral connections if you want but this person does not deserve to be on Wikipedia. FWIW the first source requires a log in so I don't know if she is a "prominent" sufferer, and that is the first of many things that should be removed from this article. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This person does not meet WP:BIO several passing mentions in references do not add up to notability. --Leivick (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the article on the institute. Unlike Ryan White, she isn't a national poster child; unlike Gaetan Dugas, she isn't a major part of a book, or accused of being the main original vector of her disease. She is notable because a notable institute was founded due to her, but I don't see anyone covering her life from cradle to grave because of it, again, unlike both Ryan White and Gaetan Dugas. All that said, this isn't a delete opinion, she should be mentioned in the encyclopedia, she just doesn't seem to have gotten enough individual attention focused on her. --GRuban (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. --Tom (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, while this young woman may have a WP article in her future, right now I don't believe there is enough to set her apart from many other patients, aside from the institute that her parents and others helped establish. From researching the lead, the ref stating "prominent" appears to be a reprint from a Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) self published newsletter.[2] Not a good RS for this. The next part of the lead states AW-G's experiences with CFS motivated her parents and her doctor to found the insitution. Her doctors motivation is not well described in the article sources, but other sources indicate he was motivated to find a better approach to the disease for his many patients.[3] In large part the motivation for her mother was to help others according to AW-G.[4][5] AW-G has been interviewed in the media, but no more than other patients such as Gino Oliveri mentioned in CFS books [6] articles, and whose picture was on the cover of Newsweek in 1990,[7], Nancy Kaiser is well known for being the first CFS patient to try Ampligen and is documented in Osler's Web, Newsweek, and Reader's Digest, and in numerous other venues,[8] and Gerald Crum who AW-G mentioned as a family friend[9] and advocated for patients with cfs, cancer, and for the WPI [10] (to name a few). As for advocacy, three letters written by AW-G from primary sources is not really that notable. Ward20 (talk) 20:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable enough for a biography. --JN466 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The nominator nails this one accurately Vartanza (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to "keep". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renato M. E. Sabbatini[edit]

Renato M. E. Sabbatini (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)

before nominating this article I noted that User:Upsala did a phenomenal job reviewing the citations for accuracy and tagging the text where questions still exist. The article has significant violations of WP:COI that make it difficult to wade through; in addition, most of the sources are in Portuguese, complicating matters. I removed the most detailed citation in English, which was to a past version of the subject's Wikipedia userpage. He may indeed be notable in Portuguese, but based on my review and Upsala's work I can find no evidence of sufficient notability for inclusion in the English Wikipedia. otherlleft 17:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —otherlleft 17:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - a bit too flattering and one sided, but of some interest.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There may be sourcing and COI issues, but those are solvable without deletion; but gross overtagging of the article by an apparent sockpuppet with no significant edit history is certainly a signal that there's another agenda playing out here -- especially since many of the sourcing defects appear to reflect the structure rather than the content of the referenced pages (eg, framing disguising actual URLs of specific sources). Nominator's suggestion that language of sources impairs notability is also rather odd. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an acknowledgement that I can't independently verify them. If an editor without a conflict of interest confirms that they confer notability I certainly wouldn't have a problem - but COI issues make it particularly important to know what the sources actually say.--otherlleft 18:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with much of what Hullaballoo Wolfowitz says - there seems to be something unhelpful about the recent editing of this article.   Will Beback  talk  20:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As a matter of principle if a topic is notable in sources of one language it is suitable to write about in any language edition of Wikipedia. We have Portuguese-speaking editors and machine-translation is another possibility. So the question is not "should this be in the Portuguese Wikipedia instead", but rather "does he meet WP:PROF?" From Google Scholar, citations to his work are not high (h-index ~6), but there are other criteria. Fences&Windows 20:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now arguing for Keep. I believe that Sabbatini does pass notability guidelines for his involvement in various organisations, and his awards for this. He is often quoted in the press as a scientist, e.g.[11] and was interviewed by a French educational magazine:[12].
  • Note to closing admin: an avid 'alternative account' like Upsala who is succeeding in driving an editor off Wikipedia should be given little or no weight in this decision. I do not believe that this behaviour falls under WP:SOCK#LEGIT, as it seems to be done to avoid scrutiny. Fences&Windows 02:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• First, re "sockpuppetry": Yes, I have edited under another account and continue to do so. That account has a "clean record" and this has nothing to do with deceiving anyone. It's simply a matter of privacy, since my real-world identity is increasingly obvious in association with my other account. I did this after concluding my situation fell under the "Privacy" exception of WP:Multiple_Accounts. The articles I edit under this account are far removed from my work under my other account. There's no "agenda."

Re my extensive tagging: After Sabbatini removed "Like resume" "More footnotes" and "Primary sources" tags from the article without addressing the problems, I responding by tagging the individual statements needed sources to demonstrate how serious the problems are. Please see my exchange with Sabbatini on Talk:Renato_M._E._Sabbatini in which I explained this and suggested that he start adding cites for material he would like to see remain in the article. Since the article's about him, and he wrote it, you'd think he'd have no problem doing that, but it's been almost a week and Sabbatini hasn't done anything (though he's been active on other articles) so I'm going ahead and removing all the uncited material. If Sabbatini insists on continuing to edit his own bio (which he really shouldn't) he can add material back if and when he can provide cites.

I personally was not planning to nominate the article for deletion, at least until seeing what was still in the article after cites were added and uncited material removed. But since Sabbatini's been on notice for some time now, I think the discussion should proceed on the article with uncited material removed.

I think it's significant that the Port. Wikipedia (whose editors would have no trouble making use of original sources) has only a two-line article on Sabbatini -- perhaps an illustration of WP:AUTO's warning that "Many people exaggerate their own significance or notability above what third parties would think."

Upsala (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or stub down to two lines as notability is not demonstrated manifestly. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Weak keep - barely passes as notable per WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think everyone should take a look at WP:PROF, as Bearian suggests, before expressing an opinion. Upsala (talk) 04:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Definitely Delete: I'd like everyone who has already commented to take a fresh look and either confirm or reconsider their prior evaluation. I have removed, step by step, all the material which was unsourced or sourced only by self-published material. This turns out to be almost the entire article, because the blunt fact is that the only person who has written anything about Sabbatini is S himself, or his family ("S.H. Cardoso" is his wife). The only exceptions are the sources for (1) his "Chamption of Innovation" listing, (2) his writing award, and (3) a cite, which I added, to a powerpoint presentation mentioning S's participation in forming the Brazilian Society for Health Informatics. While S seems like a good guy who has done some creative things, he doesn't even come close to notability under WP:PROF, and even if he did it would be impossible to write an independently sourced article on him, because there are no independent sources (and S has had plenty of time to add them even while this discussion, of which he was notified, has been going on). Unless someone can show where this logic is wrong, the article is a clear delete. Upsala (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that one of the six citations remaining is to the subject's own Wikipedia userpage hurts my brain. Isn't that the very essence of self-publication? Other than that, I was hoping that your culling would make it easier to evaluate the non-English sources for those of us constrained to that language, and it has. I still stand by the nomination.--otherlleft 13:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I'm taking the liberty of summarizing your comments as a Delete vote. We need your brain, so I'll remove that quote. BTW why are there two L's in otherlleft? Are you a llama? Upsala (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was asked to look at the article again. It's now shorter but the notability factors remain. Particularly, the receipt of an award and the inclusion in a list "50 Champions of Innovation".   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Does anyone have access to a database to test this one against WP:PROF? Bearian (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - Web of Science lists 33 articles authored or coauthored by Sabbatini as being cited at least once. (Most of the "Selected Publications" S. listed in the WP article have never been cited, according to both W. of S. and Google Scholar.) Of these 33, 22 have been cited exactly once (in some cases, by S himself), 6 were cited 2-3 times, and the rest were cited 7, 10, 24, 28, and 28 times. On none of these 5 was S the sole or even lead author. (In fact with a sigle exception every paper, on which S was the sole or lead author, has been cited exactly zero or one time; the exception: 3 times.)

As to "Champions" and popular-science writing award, these don't come anywhere near the guidelines of WP:PROF: "...major academic awards, such as the Nobel Prize, MacArthur Fellowship, the Fields Medal, the Bancroft Prize, the Pulitzer Prize for History, etc, always qualify [or] lesser significant academic honors and awards that confer a high level of academic prestige [such as] certain awards, honors and prizes of notable academic societies, of notable foundations and trusts e.g. the Guggenheim Fellowship, Linguapax Prize, etc." "Receipt of an award" and "inclusion in a list" don't pass muster. Upsala (talk) 04:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would give an h index of 5. Is that correct? Usually an h index of 10 is the bare minimum at which notability is likely under WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Well, I'm not a big fan of cold metrics in isolation, but it's obvious that no one has taken enough notice of anything Sabbatini's done to write about it. This doesn't mean he hasn't done interesting and useful things. He has. But they're not notable if no one's noted them. Actually, things are even worse than my summary above suggests: on one of the two papers with 28 cites, S. was one of a dozen coauthors! Upsala (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• My comments stand, and since there was some back and forth above, let me recap: Sabbatini seems like a good man, but nothing he has done has been commented on by anyone else that I can find (nor apparently that he himself can find, since he was invited to add cites to his own autobiography, certainly knew that this deletion discussion was going on, yet he's done nothing along those lines). His published work has been cited by almost no one, except in 5 cases where he was neither the sole nor lead author (usually he was one of many authors; papers he wrote on his own, or with his wife, sometimes get one cite but usually zero). The writing award, and inclusion in a popular magazines list of "Champions of Innovation for 2007" hardly count as "significant academic honors." Statements (above) that "other criteria" might confer notability don't help the discussion without specifying which other criteria might apply and what S. has done to satisfy them. Neither do unsubstantiated accusations against me of sockpuppety have any bearing on Sabbatini's notability. Even if notability is present, there's still another problem: there's absolutely nothing written about Sabbatini at all, except by Sabbatini, so there are no sources that could be used as the basis for an article. I'd like to hear someone tell me where I'm wrong about all this, otherwise Delete seems to be the only conclusion. Upsala (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - notability seems fairly clear to me. From the article: "Sabbatini received the 1992 Prêmio José Reis de Divulgação Científica award for popular science writing,[3] and was named one of Info Exame Magazine's "50 Champions of Innovation" for 2007.[4] He is currently president of the Edumed Institute for Education in Medicine and Health, a "not-for-profit educational, research and development institution."[5]" Any of those claims by themselves would be a reasonable claim to notability; taken together, they make a pretty strong one. Robofish (talk) 02:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per Robofish reasonings. Why isnt there a Afd tag placed on the article I wonder too?--BabbaQ (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Opinion of the biographed

Since I am the person under scrutiny, I will not manifest myself over keeping or not this article. I have tried to contribute to Wikipedia because I believed in the concept. Now I know that what is notoriety for Wikipedia can be better illustrated by obscure football players, videogame characters or, more interestingly, a List of pornographic actresses by decade.

I will now retire as a contributing editor to Wikipedia, with more than 150 articles started by me.

Do what you want regarding the article, there are hundreds of copies of it in Wikipedia copycats.

Upsala, who started all this, shows a worrying feature of Wikipedia, which is that unknown, anonymous contributors like him, have more credibility than an indentified, bona-fine, author. He has systematically and obsessively destroyed a lot of my contributions to Wikipedia, which makes me think whether he is some personal enemy of mine. The universal nature of English Wikipedia is threatened by arguments like the above, that I am a native of a Portuguese-speaking country. If a person who has hundreds of published articles in Portuguese and several books in this language, and whose credentials cannot be verified just because they are in Portuguese, then we cannot expect much about Wikipedia'a vaunted neutral and unbiased stand. In regard to notoriety, this is a more serious issue. If a person who has been (properly docomented) a founder, president, vice-president, secretary and director of informatics and director of education of three large national learned societies, including the Brazilian Medical Association (140,000 members) received awards and nominations who put him among the 50 best known authors and scientists in the country, then you all should revise what constitutes notoriety. Now I understand the reason why 99,9% of Brazilian scientists I have contacted to propose a systematic list of biographies in Wikipedia have refused: they think that it is not serious, academically speaking, and that they don't give a damn if they are listed or not.

I am now moving to be an author of Medpedia, which is supported by Harvard University, Stanford University, University of Californa at Berkeley and Wisconsin University, and which forbids ignorant non-entities, anonymous contributors, like Upsala to write anything, and which recognizes and shows the leadind editors to each article. Lost my time here. R.Sabbatini (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• What phenomenal job?? Smearing campaign

You all may notice by the list of Upsala contributions that he entered Wikipedia as an anonymous contributor on January 3rd 2010 exclusively to target the destruction and smearing of Dr. Sabbatini's valuable contributions to Wikipedia. He asked for a reference every two or three words of the bio article, which is patently an exaggeration, otherwise 90% of all bios in Wikipedia would have to be deleted. Upsala's only goal seems to be to delete Dr. Sabbatini' biography and as many as his contributions as possible. I suggest that a more responsible editor restores the entire article, deleting only obvious self-propaganda, and block User Upsala. The Philosopher of Sao Paulo (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I can appreciate that Dr. Sabbatini is frustrated by the process by which we determine notability with reliable sources (that is, those that he didn't write himself). I further note that no sockpuppet investigation of Upsala has been opened, much less drawn any conclusion. I must conclude that discussions regarding Dr. Sabbatini's feelings (assuming that the article about him doesn't contain factual errors, for which he would certainly have redress) and Upsala's contributions must be set aside to focus on this deletion debate. Upsala has raised some very specific issues regarding the usefulness of several sources, and further discussion has completely dismissed those claims. Are there any specific refutations of Upsala's assertions regarding sources?--otherlleft 01:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to "keep" Jayjg ^(talk) 03:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Hastert[edit]

Ethan Hastert (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 individual lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance – mostly brief notices of his running from office. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For normal candidates I'd normally agree. But the notoriety of Hastert's last name has garnered national media attention to this race and I think it warrants remaining on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titomuerte (talk • contribs) 23:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Not sure what is a "normal" vs. non-"normal" candidacy. Notability is not inherited (from a last name or anything else) and must be demonstrated by meeting the Wikipedia criteria. In this case, notability is defined in WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. ttonyb (talk) 23:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: In my view, there is extensive coverage in which he is the principal subject: here. As a general note, has there ever been consideration of applying the principles of WP:BLP1E to candidates? Candidates tend to get a lot of coverage, which would pass WP:GNG, but if they fail, they're generally only notable for their candidacy. In that respect, the coverage could be said to be of the candidature and the horse race, rather than of the person. I see weaknesses in this approach (especially that it involves a bias towards incumbents and stretches the concepts of an "event" and of "low profile person") and am not putting it forward as my view but it seems like one possible way in which guidelines can be invoked to delete articles about failed candidates for political office who are not notable otherwise than for their candidacies. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Sorry to interject my comment here, but looking at the GNEWS hits listed above, maybe only two are close to substantial articles about Hastert, the rest are only minimum discussions of the candidate. I do not see they support Wikipedia notability. ttonyb (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here are the sources in more detail: 1 a Boston Herald article solely about Hastert; 2 an ABC News article from AP solely about him; 3 a FOX News article from AP solely about him; 4 a Congressional Quarterly article solely about him. That’s ignoring the multitude of state-level and local sources, and the national sources that mention him as one of a number of subjects. And just for a bit of fun, there’s coverage of his drink-driving arrest as well: here and in many other sources. In my view, all of this coverage would get anyone who is not a political candidate past WP:GNG. The only way in which I can conceive that a political candidate should be treated differently is if WP:BLP1E applied. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – #1 is hardly a substantial article, but rather a short mention. Update - Actually, #1 is hard to tell if this is substantial or not-the article was archived. #2 and #3 are the possibles I saw, and #4 appears to be a blog and fails WP:RS. The DD mention is a WP:BIO1E that probably fails to support WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Congressional Quarterly is a blog that doesn't meet WP:RS? Per WP:RS, "some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control". No suggestion that that standard is not met here. CQ is a highly reputable publication. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – you are correct. I should have been more specific to say that I was not sure if this was a blog or a blog with editorial oversight. ttonyb (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an important distinction between candidates (in the sense of people who have actually won the nomination of their party) and people in the running for a particular candidacy. Given that pretty much anyone can run for office, the mere act of running for office doesn't of itself confer any notability at all. It's debateable whether all full-fledged candidates are notable, but it's certain that all people competing for candidacy are not. Hairhorn (talk) 03:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is it "certain that all people competing for candidacy are not" notable? What guideline is that based on? The distinction between nominated candidates and persons seeking nomination is just an arbitrary line in the sand that you seem to be drawing. WP:GNG is the proper standard to apply... some candidates for nomination will pass, some (most) will fail. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I meant to say that "not all people running are notable", not "all people are running are not notable". I often rag on people for making this very mistake. As for the line in the sand, it doesn't look arbitrary to me: it's the difference between running in a primary and running in an election. Have a look at wp:politician; notability is demonstrated through third party coverage, not through the simple act of filing election papers. Hairhorn (talk) 03:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a clear distinction that can be made, but I think an unhelpful and arbitrary one as far as notability is concerned. For example, a genuine Democratic candidate for nomination in an open safe Democratic seat is likely to be far more notable than a Democrat who is the nominee in a safe Republican seat held by an entrenched incumbent. Do you agree that some candidates for nomination might be notable? I certainly agree that not all will be (the vast vast majority won't). It then comes down to the test of substantial coverage per WP:GNG, which I think Hastert Jr has in spades. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as I tried to clarify, I don't think all people running for office are non-notable, that would be a farcical thing to say. But I will say — as the wiki notabilty policy says — that notability is demonstrated by third party coverage, not by filing election papers. Hairhorn (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No sensible person could disagree with that! --Mkativerata (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: No one seems to address his status as son of the former speaker of the house. One cannot deny the importance of family relations in this matter, since almost every member of Barack Obama's family has their own wikipedia page. Their notoriety comes entirely from their family relationship to the President, like this guy: here. Or this person: no one can honestly tell me that Maya Soetoro Ng is more notable than Ethan Hastert Titomuerte (talk) 07:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one's address his status as son of the former speaker of the house because it doesn't make him notable. Hairhorn (talk) 22:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Notability is not inherited from family members. Each article must stand on it's own merits. This AfD is about Wikipedia based notability (which both the Lolo_Soetoro and Maya_Soetoro article meet), not "real-world" notability. As stated above, the Hastert article does not appear to meet the Wikipedia criteria for notability. ttonyb (talk) 22:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I haven't decided how (or if) I'll !vote on this AfD, but I want to point out that the article as it originally appeared was a real hackjob. Also, to Titomuerte, notability is not inherited, and if you find an article of someone who isn't individually notable but seems to be listed only by virtue of a family relationship, well, I hear you but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Bothered that it hasn't been nominated for deletion? WP:SOFIXIT.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 08:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't think Hastert has sufficient coverage yet to pass the general notability guideline. I added an AP article published by the Boston Herald about his primary campaign, but it's almost trivial coverage. The other mentions are typically in relation to other candidates that are offspring of legislators and Hastert gets fairly trivial coverage there. I think it's quite possible that he will become notable in two weeks time, and would be happy to see the article recreated then. Jogurney (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I disagree based on his previous coverage and the current potential of his congressional race, where I understand he's considered the clear front runner. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say his article ought to be deleted in two weeks if he loses his race? Titomuerte (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Also you referenced Hastert's appearance in Google News as mattering to his level of notability. But I performed a google news search on a random person from the pages you've created (Cedric Faure) and Hastert has 3 times as many pages. Titomuerte (talk) 05:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I referenced Google News because it is an indication of whether the article would pass WP:GNG - and I missed the discussion above where someone listed 4 potential sources that would satisfy the GNG. I don't think those 4 sources quite pass GNG, but agree that it's close. As far as waiting 2 weeks to delete, I don't think that's appropriate and we have no way of knowing if Mr. Hastert will win the election and whether such victory would result in coverage significant enough to pass the GNG. As far as Faure, please feel free to take that article to AfD - I simply created a poor stub on him years ago - but I would be shocked if he isn't considered notable based on his exploits as a professional athlete. Jogurney (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edukids[edit]

Edukids (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 pre-K program. Declined the speedy because the article is technically about a school, but irregardless this has no place on Wikipedia. 2 says you, says two 22:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm not convinced that child-care centers aren't businesses for db-corp purposes; but in any event this is a completely non-notable example.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This fails to meet WP:GNG. Not that this is the correct forum, but I'd agree this doesn't qualify as a school. Transmissionelement (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know, I was trying to "play it safe" by moving the discussion to AfD because schools are such a hot topic within the realm of deletion. 2 says you, says two 14:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Houses[edit]

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

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

Nomination on behalf of IP 98.248.32.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who completed steps 1 and 3 of the AfD process and left the following note on the talk page: "Fails notability criteria - has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. 98.248.32.44 (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

I am neutral and only listing this in good faith on behalf of the IP user who followed the instructions in the ((afd1)) template. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.

1. Discuses elevator problems in Clinton Houses
2. Details a family's life in Clinton Houses
3. Emporis link on page
4. It's a housing project that houses 1823 people. How many obscure towns have articles on here with less or no media coverage and less residents? mynameinc (t|c) 22:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - not just a housing complex, but virtually a whole neighborhood several large blocks in size, with almost 2,000 residents. Plenty of good sources have been found and can be found. Notable also because of Robert Moses' efforts to build this by knocking down a "slum". Will continue to be notable because of the Second Avenue Subway stops being built nearby. Bearian (talk) 22:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More than enough inline citations, plenty of opportunity for expansion. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Of the five references, three are published the owner of the topic (New York City Housing Authority), one is a user-edited site[13][14], and one doesn't mention Clinton Houses at all.[15] 98.248.41.72 (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There are sources more on Google News that mention it directly, and the CB11M source is to prove it is in Spanish Harlem. Also, I couldn't find a way to edit the Clinton Houses article on Emporis. I am on WikiBreak for a few days and will implement the changes when I get back. mynameinc (t|c) 03:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Google news search shows plenty of mention of them. Doesn't the mention in the New York Times in several places, make these houses notable? [16] Dream Focus 18:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are plenty of WP:Reliable Sources to back up this article. - FaceMash (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Evidently notable. I have added a citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Amyraldism. Tone 23:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate Calvinism[edit]

Moderate Calvinism (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 was a term coined by Norman Geisler, but the article has confused it with the "Four point Calvinism", or Amyraldianism. Geisler's views properly belong in the article about him. StAnselm (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge information into the section on Four-point Calvinism in the main Calvinism article or the Amyraldianism article. It may be under the wrong name, but it still is useful information and I see no reason to delete it. RawrMage (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Amyraldism. The coverage in Calvinism is probably about sufficient. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:CRYSTAL issue or !vote has been countered and does not apply. (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 16:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu Magoo[edit]

Kung Fu Magoo (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 film. Despite the notability of its cast and its subject matter, no reliable results can be found for the existence of this film. Several rumors seem to have floated around the internet regarding its existence, but even the IMDB entry seems hinky, with an "official site" that links to an anonymous IP address rather than a named domain. Prod denied by author. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NF, WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Google shows no apparent signs of notability: [17]. — Rankiri (talk) 23:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)^{(Rankiri (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC))}[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NF and also WP:NOTCRYSTAL as above. RawrMage (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per improvements showing confirmation in reliable sources that the film s in post production and preparing for its 2010 release. In regards WP:CRYSTAL, I note "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.". Considering cast, coverage can reasonably be presumed to increase, not diminish. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The newfound sources seem sufficient. Well done. — Rankiri (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn Per improvements by MichaelQSchmidt (talk · contribs). Kudos to him for finding sources that I could not. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clicking on Google news search up top, I see 20 results. They mention the series, so it must be notable, they not talking about it otherwise at all. Dream Focus 18:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft SharePoint Ribbon[edit]

Microsoft SharePoint Ribbon (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)

Doesn't seem notable enough for its own article (the other Microsoft Ribbons don't have their own article), merge to Ribbon (computing) possibly.  fetchcomms☛ 21:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Other ribbons don't have their own articles. Anyway, the article doesn't show why it is notable. It's short for even a stub. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 22:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge somewhere else (either to Sharepoint or to Ribbon (computing)). Not notable for independent article. Simply Delete would be OK too. LotLE×talk 09:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think a WP:BOLD redirect to Ribbon (computing) would have worked here. I don't see the point of this discussion unless someone objected to the redirect... Pcap ping 09:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep; non-admin closure. Regard this as a unanimous keep after the article was expanded during the deletion discussion and referenced with reliable sources. Mkativerata (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rio (film)[edit]

Rio (film) (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 this unreleased film. The notability of which has yet to be determined, if it ever comes out. JBsupreme (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, leaning Keep per improvements. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 23:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Yes, it is somewhat crystalline, but it has actors/actresses that are widely known, and my google searches came up with this, this, and this somewhat-dubious source. The IMDb source already on the page says the movie is currently filming, so it looks like this movie indeed will come out. Final notability can be determined once it has been released. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since IMDb relies heavily upon user-generated content, we probably should not use them as a source. I know that it is specifically prohibited when dealing with BLP articles and frowned upon for all other articles in general. JBsupreme (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per improvements. Ignoring IMDB, the film project has received significant coverage in reliable sources: Variety, New York Times, Hollywood Reporter, Sci-Fi Wire, Monsters & Critics, Cinema Blend, et al. Considering the companies and persons involved, it will be seeing more, not less. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ample news coverage found. Dream Focus 03:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per improvements made. -- Banjeboi 15:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Icewedge (talk) 04:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gay Blue Jeans Day[edit]

Gay Blue Jeans Day (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. I see some press releases and mentions on a few university websites, but I do not see any significant coverage of this day being observed by any kind of reliable third party publications. [18] JBsupreme (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, some of the sources are down and none of them explain this topic's notability. Sorafune +1 22:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A Google search of the topic gives 15,000 hits. Many are University groups discussing their local celebration of the day. The protest was an important early tactic. That it refers to a Gay rights protest leads me to be doubly reluctant to delete the article under 'not censored'.

The protest is a historical event more than a current one. So unsuprisingly, those organizations that still carry it on are the only ones to report it. At the time there certainly were many references in third party publications. Of course, this was before the internet, and it was a news event.

It seems better to keep the article and provide some such sources if they're needed. For example, this [May 7 1981 discussion in the Cornell Daily Sun]. This paper has a 'history' column that mentions the protest [Outrider vol 13] I'm afraid I don't have a stack of college papers from the mid 1980's available at the moment, but I suppose I could go find some.

I believe this meets the criteria of 'Significant Coverage' (it's the focus of the article in many cases) 'Reliable' (commercial publishers) secondary sources (the book mention, for instance) 'independent of the subject' (it's easy to find negative references, and certainly the scholarly references should count)

The page is linked (to Gay_rights_in_the_United_States).

The protest was important enough that the LGBT Historical Archive in San Francisco included several flyers for it in a public display of artifacts of the LGBT rights movement.

The protest is mentioned in 8 different books in the Google books collection, for example Wolf, Michelle (1991). Gay People, Sex, Media. Binghamton, NY: Harrington Park Press. p. 248. ISBN 0-918393-77-9. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Finally, we should look at the 'would this be in a paper encyclopedia?', to which I have to answer yes. The article seems like something a student or researcher of LGBT history would find useful.

I admit the article has problems. It seems a better use of editor's energy to improve the article than to delete it.

20:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Anniepoo (talk • contribs)

• Keep. I had never heard of it so was dubious ... but there's a few books with the exact phrase and and over 20 GNews hits for a poorly named campaign. Tweaking the search phrase quickly doubles those results. If this is a continuous annual campaign it would be likely the longest running annual non-parade event for LGBT awareness. -- Banjeboi 22:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Benjiboi. Agree that sources exist, and notability - while a bit thin, given the history - is still there. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All the Google news results are for Penn State University. The Google book search results show this is notable. "Gay people, sex, and the media" and other books mention it. Dream Focus 13:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Enough coverage to establish notability. Defender of torch (talk) 02:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Schlittler[edit]

Eric Schlittler (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 recording artist. Ridernyc (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, indeed. JBsupreme (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable singer in a non-notable band. Joe Chill (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Band is not notable, and neither is this guy. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 22:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find significant coverage for this person (separate from his Kid Icarus band/project) in independent reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO.  Gongshow ^Talk 23:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as article fails WP:BAND. Armbrust (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article is a stub and should be expanded, but the subject is notable. The discussion on the band leans toward notability. (Thx Gongshow.) He is also founder of a notable record label--notable because it includes notable acts. In addition, the stub gets 30-50 hits per month, so there ARE people referring to it for info. However, there aren't any facts here that you can't get from other articles; therfore I give it a soft 'KEEP' in the hopes that others will develop it. With some work, it could be a lengthy, refernce-free article like Alec Ounsworth of Clap Your Hands Say Yeah. (^_^) Kindofdavish (talk) 00:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Bang & Other Hits[edit]

Bang Bang & Other Hits (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 compilation. Kekkomereq4 (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - the album is (briefly) reviewed at AllMusic which I'm pretty sure helps with notability in music-related articles. I only mention this to help others vote if they're so inclined. I can't find anything else about the album outside of retail sites, meaning it didn't make much impact with the public, not even with AllMusic given how skimpy that review is. It's surely a quickie budget compilation for casual fans. Perhaps notable because it's by Cher but probably not notable in itself. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Cher is unquestionably a notable artist. If her bio article were to have all the worthwhile and properly sourced information about her, however, it would be far too long. Therefore, the editors of the article have properly used summary style. The main article links to a daughter article concerning Cher albums discography, and that article links to articles about particular albums. It's an excellent way to make available a rich level of detail about Cher (which some readers would want) without surrendering to clutter that would impair Wikipedia's value for readers who want less detail. JamesMLane t c 09:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 22:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I intended to find a reason to vote keep but came to the same conclusion as Doomsdayer520. Then was going to suggest redirect to Cher albums discography, but after seeing her other compilation albums, particularly Greatest Hits: 1965–1992 which was released in the same year and was certified at least gold in at least 8 different countries, I decided that the significance of this release is non-existent. J04n(talk page) 00:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The most "significant" coverage I can find is this tiny Allmusic review (edit: the same one listed above by User:Doomsdayer520). Unless more (and better) sources are presented, it appears this budget-priced compilation does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow ^Talk 01:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Straight Edge Society[edit]

The Straight Edge Society (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 tag team. They have not done anything notable (at least yet), they have only teamed together twice in fact. They could possibly become notable in the future, but I don't think they are yet. TJ Spyke 21:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —TJ Spyke 21:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absoulutly nothing notable about these 2 except they #1 contenders to the Unified Tag Team Championship which like Jeri-Show (who actually won the titles) doesn't qualify them as notable.--C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 23:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add-on I can actually name a lot of teams that won tag titles (or at least were a contender to them) that don't have there own pages. 1. CM Punk and Kofi Kingston 2. Rey Mysterio and Batista 3. Jeri-Show 4. Batista and John Cena 5. John Cena and Shawn Michaels 6. MVP and Mark Henry etc. must I go on. Thoses teams are just like these 2 un-notable besides winning or qualifying for tag titles.--C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 23:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per TJ Spyke's assessment. The fact that the teams listed in Curtis's !vote makes this pairing even less notable. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 23:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly why should we have a page for a team that hasn't won the titles when we don't even have pages for teams who have won the titles.--C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 23:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Is that even a tag-team name? The team has done nothing. Fails WP:N.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Contains 0 notability. Afro (Not a Talk Page) ^{- Afkatk} 04:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete They have only tagged together twice that i know of and have not been in any major matches IE. Title matches.--Steam Iron 05:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I gotta give a vote of Keep, though with heavy editing. It's not so much a tag team, but a kayfabe movement, what with the bringing down of audience members to shave their head and whatnot. It seems to be a major angle and is getting a serious focus on SmackDown. If it turns out to fall by the wayside and be nothing then the article could be removed later, but it's notable enough to keep for now. Some of the arguments presented here could be considered invalid. For instance, the listing of teams like Batista and Mysterio and Jeri-Show as not having articles. It could easily be argued that those teams should have an article as well, not that this shouldn't. Plus, arguing that they're not notable because they haven't won tag titles seems ridiculous to me. Professional wrestling is a scripted form of entertainment, no one "wins" any titles unless the booker says so. Not to mention, the current Tag Team Champions, D-Generation X, didn't win those titles until 12 years after they formed. Were they irrelevant for 12 years because of that? Also, one of the listed examples, MVP & Mark Henry, also never won tag titles either. So yes, I vote Keep for now, as the "Straight Edge Society" has current notability and shows potential for long-term notability. -Josh (talk) 16:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that they didn't win the titles for 12 years what I mean is those teams I listed they are un-notable as they didn't do anything also I think all of those teams except John Cena and Shawn Michaels were deleted through AfD which is your point I think anyway. Also DX they were actually noteable they actually did things that would catch people's eyes this team all they have done is shave people's head and are #1 contenders to the titles.--C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 21:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that DX have won the tag titles before. The New Age Outlaws won the titles multiple times while part of DX, this is just the first time that Triple H and Shawn Michaels have held the titles together. TJ Spyke 21:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yah heres it from the page:

• • WWF/E World Tag Team Championship (8 times, current)^[1] – New Age Outlaws (Road Dogg and Billy Gunn) (4),^[2][3][4][5] X-Pac and Kane (2),^[6][7] John Cena and Shawn Michaels (1), Triple H and Shawn Michaels (1, current)^[8]
  • WWE Tag Team Championship (1 time, current)^[9] - Shawn Michaels and Triple H^[10]

So your DX argument is irrelevant. FYI i'm adding a reference section so you know i'm not lying.--C23 C23's talk Help solve the WrestleMania 23 dispute 21:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per all of the above. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in it's current form talking about a tag team. If the article was switched to the kayfabe movement it could be salvagable, but it's too early to tell. Also - either way - there is no claim to notability. !! Justa Punk !! 10:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this nonsensical wrestlecruft. Guy (Help!) 22:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As a faction they may become relevant later but not now. Even if they were to win the straps next week the kibosh should be put on it; the group - two steady "members" such as it is - in in its infancy and has no official name or notability.Papacha (talk) 10:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schwarzchild proton[edit]

Schwarzchild proton (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)

Crackpot theory claims to overturn the Standard Model, replacing the quark description of the proton by claiming it is actually a black hole with no internal structure. The sum total of supporting citation for this article is a single reference to an obscure "award" from a "Computing Anticipatory Systems" (not peer reviewed by physicists). CosineKitty (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE says delete. Cosmo0 (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete main reason: no significant coverage of this fringe idea outside the authors website and a nonnotable, nonphysicist conference. to make it here, we'd at least need evidence of controversy. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a theory, it has been published and it's intriguing at some level. I come to Wikipedia not only to read mainstream educational stuff but also for thought provoking stuff. Also, if you delete this page on the ground that's fringe science then why Time cube is still there? -- Femmina (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:FRINGE covers this topic well: the Time Cube is widely known and disparaged, whereas this theory has no notable coverage, not even ridicule. CosineKitty (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try to search "Nassim Haramein" on youtube. If you sum the views of the first four videos that come out you get 241118. Now, if you sum the digits of that number you get 17. That is exactly the number that comes after 16 which is exactly 4 times 4 which is the length of the word Keep. Seriously, he's not that unknown and unappreciated. -- Femmina (talk) 22:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable self-published crackpot theory per CosineKitty. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 23:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:FRINGE, per nom, and per total lack of coverage in credible, independent, secondary sources. Haramein isn't notable and neither are his theories. Yilloslime ^T_C 06:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Let me try another tactic here. If you delete this article you planets will become disaligned and your sacred geometry will get all scrambled. Are you willing to accept this risk? Or maybe try not to think about this as something related to the field of physics but as something related to new age. If that helps. -- Femmina (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I for one am quite willing to take the risk of scramblage!  :) Seriously though, I think you are missing the point about this deletion proposal. The primary problem is lack of notability as established by any reliable source. I support deletion of this article, but would not do so for say, Flat Earth Society or Plasma cosmology, because the Schwartzchild proton idea appears only in a non-peer-reviewed self-published paper and in various blogs and YouTube videos. To survive in Wikipedia, any topic must be important enough for established third parties to make note of it, even if they are just making fun of it. For example, suppose if Scientific American were to debunk the theory with a couple of paragraphs of ridicule, and we could include that here as a citation, the article might have a leg to stand on. So far, every attempt I have made to find anyone other than Haramein writing about Haramein's theory has yielded only YouTube videos and people on blogs asking "WTF?". If some day it attains any measurable following, even as a well-known self-parody pseudo-religion like the Church of the Subgenius, I would reverse myself and support the article's existence here, assuming of course that the topic was covered accurately, from neutral point of view, and based on reliable sources. CosineKitty (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was looking into adding something to the article, just to see if it was possible but I honestly don't understand mr. Haramein's theory well enough to describe it in my own words. I also agree with your reasoning. According to the rules this article can go but still I feel like we're about to give up on the last Dodo bird on earth. -- Femmina (talk) 15:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This isn't even "mainstream" for a fringe theory. It's evidently obscure enough that there's not even enough interest to bother debunking it, and no evidence supporting it. The "Well, (insert related subject here) has an article!" argument doesn't hold. This needs to be judged on its own merits. Or lack thereof. Bagheera (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There seems to be no independent support for this theory. The only readily available documentation is from the author of the paper. While not strictly relevant to this isolated article, it should be noted that the page for the author has already been deleted twice - this seems to be an attempt to "gain a toehold," and nothing more, as the article is so short as to be meaningless other than providing a link to his page. --Tharaun (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Tharaun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's right; I finally decided to make an account. Since I'm not the originator of the page in question, though, I fail to see how your comment affects my contribution... I could just log out and go back to commenting anonymously, but would it change the fact of my statement? Perhaps Wikipedia:BITE is relevant? --Tharaun (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if that was bite-y. It's standard practice to tag !votes from newly registered accounts with — [[User:|User:]] ([[User talk:|talk]] • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . I've done this probably dozens of times, and usually these accounts are obvious sockpuppets desperately trying to keep their pet article on WP. This is clearly not the case with you and your !vote, but I'm just trying to be consistent in my tagging of accounts.Yilloslime ^T_C 19:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The paper setting out the hypothesis (I personally don't think it rates 'theory' in scientific usage) allegedly won an award as best paper - at a conference for Computer Anticipating Systems, which puzzles me a bit. I can't find any official confirmation of this award or of the paper being presented there. Plenty of bloggish etc mentions. I also found this http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32453 discussion of Haramein's work. I don't recommend reading the whole thread (I haven't).... (See also David Icke for background if you do go there.) No independent reliable references, and definite OR. Peridon (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep To let everyone know, I am in no way affiliated with the resonance project. I just heard the theory proposed and explained in a youtube video, and I found the resonance project's webpage. I'm aware that few other sources cite the page, but the mathematics used in Haramein's paper just seem to make sense of the seemingly nonsensical "strong force." Please, if someone can just read through his paper, check the math; it all ties everything together. If you don't want to read the paper to get the math, watch the youtube video that brought me to create this page posted in the external links section. Please note the examples of public interest: Luke Fortune's Radio interview, Luke Fortune's lecture. Luke Fortune is a classically trained physicist who has written several books. If there's anything else I can do to keep this page running, please let me know. In the radio interview, Luke mentions attending a university lecture regarding the topic of the Schwarzchild proton. I'll see if I can contact Luke Fortune to get more information regarding the lecture he mentioned. Doc7777777777 (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Doc7777777777 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At a quick glance on Google, Luke Fortune seems to be self-published via lulu.com, and connected with UFO and other fringe matters. He appears to be a 'certified paralegal' (whatever that is - they can cure a lot of things now...) He is also on FaceBook (I think most people are, except me). I can not find a reference to him being a 'classically trained physicist'. Could be further down the list. Peridon (talk) 18:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on e-mailing him, but although it would be much more convenient, I can't seem to find him on Facebook. Well, I can find several Luke Fortune's, but I can't seem to verify that any one of them is the Luke Fortune in the videos. All I know is that since the radio interview was from Vegas, most likely, he lives in Las Vegas, NV, or at least somewhere in the general area. Doc7777777777 (talk) 21:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try author@ufohowto.com or through http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-UFO-How-To-Scientific-Development-Trust-501c3/212231431245?ref=share The 'Luke Fortune' I noted above (and have now struck through) appears to be someone else. Peridon (talk) 11:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this "theory" has convinced you, Doc, of its validity. The reality though is that it's not a mainstream theory and doesn't appear to have any support in the actual Physics community. The "award" for best paper was not from a physics journal, nor was the paper peer reviewed by physicists. If the article was presented in a way that reflected this was not a well accepted mainstream theory, then it would have a much better chance of inclusion. As it stands, there's virtually nothing that supports its entry. Cheers. Bagheera (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No strong argument for keeping, and the delete arguments include concerns about notability, WP:CRYSTAL, and indeed verifiability given some of the conflicting information. No prejudice against recreation if the film is released in some fashion and more info becomes available. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ullam[edit]

Ullam (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)

Unable to find multiple third party reliable sources that confirm this film meets WP:NF or even WP:GNG. I was able to find an IMDb entry for Ullam but the information in IMDb differs greatly from what is described in the article, creating doubt that this is the same film. This reference provided is from a 2008 article and the soundtrack was supposedly released in 2004; the film in the IMDb link is claimed to have been released in 2005. I'm not sure if several films are being mistaken for one another or if this film is one of those films in perennial production that is having a hard time getting wrapped up but I don't think it qualifies for its own article at this time. I'll gladly withdraw my nomination if proper sources can be found to show notability. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm finding lots of sources, that upon further review always refer to another film. With the soundtrack being released six years ago, this does sound like a perennial production delay, but, again, I can't find anything that confirms that! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak weak keep per edging toward the coverage allowed in WP:CRYSTAL... specially with a soundtrack pre-released in 2004 to garner funding [19][20]. The one film listed on IMDB as released in 2005 is a Malayam film by that same name. Sadly, IMDB most definitely lacks coverage of many Tamil films, and searches are quite often confused because of the Indian penchant for releasing so many films with similar titles and in several differnt languages. This will need input from the few editors familiar with that area. Screen India, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:03, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if deleted, redirect to Teller-Ullam as it is likely to be a reference to the nuclear bomb. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: usually (but not always), Tamil films that get stuck without release for such a long period (years in this case), don't get released. And in most cases this means the film has been a subject of financial dispute or it ran out of funds to be finished. And when some of them do come out, they go direct to satellite broadcast without theatrical release. The article can wait till the film comes out.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SitNGo Wizard[edit]

SitNGo Wizard (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)

SitNGo Wizard is written like an advertisement, even though I have removed several peacock term filled sentences. It also has questionable notability as it is an obscure software product applicable to only one form of poker, and has been written entirely by one editor... DegenFarang (talk) 17:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• Keep Texas hold'em is the most popular form of cards in the world, AFAIK. This article is about a notable piece of software that is essential to contemporary online poker players. Several software reviewers have reviewed the software and it is highly recommended on poker forums.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The software does not apply to texas hold em, not even online texas hold em, it applies only to sitngo tournaments which make up a very small portion of the overall poker and indeed, online poker, pool of games. DegenFarang (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It pertains to the end game of any tournament. Also, as I understand it SNGs are now the most popular form of online poker.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the peacock terms - you should work in advertising. I don't know how you define 'most popular' but a simple glance at the lobby of any online poker site will show you cash games are far more "popular", and it isn't close. I used to play SNG's a lot, I have used several of the SNG tools. And because of this I know that any software in this niche applies to a very small group of people, maybe 10,000 at most, who actually take SNG"s seriously. Misstating the notability of this tool is not going to help you here, you keep trying to make it sound more important than it really is - instead you should focus on making the article more neutral and maybe this part wont matter. DegenFarang (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure I have written the article in exchange for a free registration (which would cost me $99 after the 30-day trial ends).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. note that in critical review I showed both pluses and minuses to retain a neutral point of view.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed you owned it but yes, from reading it, it is very clear you were biased. Though I give you tremendous credit for admitting that when nobody could have proven otherwise. See CardRunners (which I created, with no incentive) for what a neutral and objective article of a poker product should look like, in my opinion. DegenFarang (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also wrote PokerTracker, which is a WP:GA. I am receptive to critical advice in regards to bias, but feel I have included both pluses and minuses.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PokerTracker is a very good article, other than the end where there is a huge paragraph of praise from other websites. When I'm not so tired I will go in and clean that up - or somebody else can. Other than that, you should strive for the neutrality of the PokerTracker article and not give so much background information on the SNG structure and the need for this software (that is all a sales pitch, if a subtle one). Just explain the software and what it does, don't explain the need people have for the software - that should be self-evident if it is notable enough for inclusion. DegenFarang (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteNeutral. I don't see many reliable (non self published) sources cited, though I am not an expert on online poker. If somebody can prove that the sources are reliable, I'll change my !vote. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you consider reliable for poker software? I have included several independent software reviews.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to neutral. I'm not completely sure that the software is notable, but some of the reviews seem to hint at notability. Changed to neutral. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in previous format. Article is now much improved but still needs work. I'm not positive the software is notable enough for inclusion but I'm not an expert on the notability of businesses or services, so I'll leave that for others to decide. Previously it read like an advertisement, there have now been major improvements in that area. DegenFarang (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the version (by me) that DegenFarang referred to as "much improved" was reverted by TonyTheTiger shortly thereafter to hi$ preferred ver$ion. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reverted because I have not seen anyone attempt to remove inline citations since about 2007 or 2008. Your removal of inline citations was destructive.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I wrote here earlier, I removed spam links and questionable sources—fairly standard procedure around here. None of the references are to news sites. Example 1: pokersoftware.com/sitngo-wizard/. That page ends with an invitation for readers to "Submit your own review"; user-generated content isn't encyclopedic. Example 2: Ezinearticles.com is on the spam blacklist (probably why you didn't link it),which should have said something about their reputation. Example 3: sngwiz.com itself. A vendor's website should not be used as the source for claims about their own product.

        If any of the "refs" had been to solid reputable sites, I would have left them.

        If you haven't seen spam removed since 2007, perhaps it would be a good time to re-read some policy pages: WP:RS, WP:COI, WP:OWN, and last summer's community discussion of paid editing. The ((review)) and ((uw-tdel1)) templates might be a good idea as well. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete Sorry but this is promotional editing and should not be encouraged on Wikipedia, as per WP:NOT AND WP:SPAM. A truly notable organization shouldn't have to entice editors to write a Wikipedia article on their product. I also think Tony should refrain from creating similar COI articles in the future. ThemFromSpace 01:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They did not solicit me, I asked if they would give me a free registration for a copy of the software.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I tried to clean this up but there wasn't much left afterwards. Between the paid editing by the initial author, the zero Google news hits in English, and the lack of any reliable sources that cover the application, I don't see it as a keeper. The original version of the article had serious issues (such as violating ((review))) which could be fixed, but there are no sources that cover this brand-new application. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know why you think removing inline citations improves the article. Your editing makes no sense.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply: I removed them as references because they aren't from WP:RS. If you can find any solid sourcing (from outlets such as PC World) for this product, add it—but I looked and couldn't find any (again, note the zero news hits). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepBeing written like an advertisement is a valid reason for a cleanup tag, but it's not a valid reason for deletion. Being written entirely by one editor is not a valid deletion reason either. Multiple references provide evidence of notability, which was the only valid deletion reason cited. Rray (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete So because someone says, "Oh I got paid to do this and I'm being honest about it", then it's OK? What next for TonyTheTiger, there's any number of crappy poker tools out there that he could create weasely articles for. Hazir (talk) 05:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A few reviews is not proof of importance/notability, they merely confirm that the software exists.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Expand: We do not have articles on every musical album or every book that is published. Similarly, we do not have an article on every piece of software released. Simple reviews is not sufficeint to show that the item in question is notable---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the article is currently protected. The deletion vote should be suspended until the article is unprotected, so references can be added, it can be made to word less like an ad, etc. Samboy (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, like any other protected article, if there is something to be added, a request can be made on the talk page and it can be added.

In addition, references missing from the article may be presented in the AfD to show notability and then re-added in later after the closure. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Request for clarification Do the following count as WP:RS?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. On The Rail
  2. Pokersoftware.com
  3. Part Time Poker

• Here's what I've found so far after a quick look:

1. ontherail.co.uk: was referred to here as not counting as a reputable, third-party source.
2. pokersoftware.com: based on this press release the site is less than three months old, so it's too early to say.
3. parttimepoker.com: based on this, it doesn't sound promising.

If you search for each site on Google News, none are being used by news sources as a reference, which would have been a point in their favor. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 05:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure g-testing poker software is a fair test. Would any of the following show up in google news: Bluff Magazine, Card Player, Poker Road or Poker News Daily? If you look around you will see that there is no poker software on wikipedia and we know this is a scientific endeavor with people trying to gain advantages with technology. I think that traditional RS tests may just be biased against poker.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then how do you propose to demonstrate that these sites have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what a google news tests for? I don't know that that is the case. In terms of the sources above, I am surprised On The Rail is not considered a RS. Personally, if it just lets Kara Scott write whatever she feels, I would trust her or whomever. It seems they rely on experts although they might not fact check. I was under the impression that new rules on blogging admit unreviewed commentary by experts. I think poker is getting shafted, because they may not use the same journalistic approach as other fields. I don't think the traditional journalism paradigm fits poker. Many sources that the public relies on may just be expert opinions that are not reviewed in traditional journalistic ways.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further on the On The Rail source. According to DoriSmith (talk · contribs) it is not a RS. However, look at the review. It is by the Managing Editor of Poker Player Magazine. This makes it as reliable as any blog by an expert at the very least and in the current environment, we do consider blogs by experts to be reliable sources if I am understanding WP:RS correctly. Can Dori comment on this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SOURCE QUERY given the source above, I stumbled upon the following online mentions of the software and want to know if they are considered WP:RSs

1. http://www.pokerplayer.co.uk/poker-equipment/poker-accessories/8569/sitngo-software-tools-reviewed.html
2. http://www.pokerplayer.co.uk/poker-strategy/sit-and-go-poker/4866/poker-stt-strategy.html

Tony I think an article on the genre of this type of software would be more than acceptable, my problem is that *I* do not see this particular piece of software as being notable. Has it had some reviews? Yes. But a lot of software products, just as a lot of books get reviewed. Simply because a book is reviewed does not make the book worthy of an entry, similarly, just because a piece of software gets reviewed does not make it worthy of an entry.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 15:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to create an article for a book that you have never heard of that had been reviewed in RSs, wouldn't it pass at AFD. We should not be going by personal opinions on what is notable. If the managing editor of a major poker magazine reviews a software and several other reliable reviewers review it that makes it WP:N. My question, which it would be helpful if you would respond to, is whether you consider the sources above to be WP:RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poker Player Magazine is an RS - however all they did was a review. Even all books and cd's that are reviewed by the New York Times are not notable simply because of that review. When extremely notable poker resources like DeucesCracked and BlueFirePoker do not even have their own articles - not to mention the entire category of poker training websites - I find it a huge stretch to see how this software is notable enough to have its own article. An article on SNG software I guess would be better than this - though a general poker software or online poker tools article would be better, so the training sites and non-SNG software could be includedDegenFarang (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DeucesCracked has lots of discussion about this software, but they are a poker forum. I was told about this at 2+2, but did not view them as a RS.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TwoPlusTwo has even more discussion about it on their forums.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood me. I was not saying DeucesCracked is an RS, I was saying they are far more deserving of an article than SNG Wizard. And there are probably 50-100 other poker products and services that lie between the two on the poker notability scale. DeucesCracked has a poker forum however the purpose of the website is to provide poker training videos to subscribers for a monthly fee, the same as CardRunners, BlueFirePoker, LeggoPoker, StoxPoker and many others DegenFarang (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A book review doesn't mean the book is notable. Take a little challenge. Goto Amazon.COM, select a word, any word, and put it into the search engine. Pick the Xth book, and then do a search for book reviews. I just did five books, and I was five for five on finding book reviews on those books. Having a review, even in reliable sources, proves existence, it does not prove notability. A book with just a few short reviews would likely be deleted. As for forums, no they are not reliable sources---but you know that.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I get the point that most published books have reviews somewhere. I also admit that although I have produced GAs for both software (PokerTracker) and books (Encyclopedia of Chicago and A More Perfect Union: Advancing New American Rights), I am not an expert on notability for either topic and am in a gray area that I do not understand on what constitutes notability. I am just not sure that the decision is being based on lack of notability. It seems that a lot of the problem is that I asked for a copy of the software in exchange for writing an article. If I told you I received two tickets to a show at the Chicago Theatre would it make that subject any more or less notable? I think not. What I need to understand is whether any of the extant or proposed sources is considered reliable. If Poker Player Magazine is a reliable source, I think we have at least three reliable sources for the article and two more than when this discussion started. Am I correct that we have at least three reliable sources for this article now?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing that Poker Player Magazine is not reliable... I think it is. But having a review, does not make it reliable. When I lived in Denver, the local dinner theater always had it's shows reviewed by numerous notable sources---the Rocky Mountain News, Denver Post, Westwood Magazine, 5280 Magazine, etc. Does that mean that when the local dinner theater produces "WestSide Story" that their rendition of WestSide Story is notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia? Poker Magazines are very niche and are going to have a fairly low barrier to coverage because they are looking for esoteric things that fill their niche. It's a niche that I enjoy, but that does not mean that it conveys notability to it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are saying that I have found some reliable sources, but you are comparing this to local theater. Why is it so prominently mentioned in the leading international poker forums such as DeucesCracked and TwoPlusTwo? It is even mentioned a few times at bluff magazine] and Poker Road.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, your lack of poker knowledge betrays you. DeucesCracked is not a 'leading international poker forum' - nowhere close - they are a poker training website. This doesn't change your point, it does however magnify the fact that you are a poker noob and most likely unqualified to objectively determine the notability of poker products and services (though nearly every single poker noob - other than Darvin Moon) - will vehemently disagree with a statement like that, it is perhaps this very trait that makes them all noobs). I get that you are an SNG player and that you were compensated to write this article: thus it is very notable to you. That does not mean it is in fact notable in reality. A poll of serious live and online poker players and people in the industry would likely reveal less than 10% of them have even heard of this product, though its 300,000 Alexa does point to a not-insignificant number of people using it. DegenFarang (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not about figuring out which are the most important topics and adding them in order. I work on a ton of athletes for example and probably none of the veterans that I have worked on will ever go to the hall of fame for their sports (Tyrone Wheatley, Cato June and Tai Streets for example). I have spent a lot of time on Rob Pelinka, but almost none on Kobe Bryant. Pelinka is a virtual unknown. Probably less than 10% of basketball fans have heard of him. Since we overlapped in the Ross School of Business by a year he is sort of a classmate of mine and I decided to work on an article that hit home. In poker I have worked on the three poker tools that I use. Even if there are 50 other poker topics that are more important that does not mean that you should delete these to encourage me to work on the most important. The minimal compensation that I received is so off-topic in regards to the notability, that I don't understand why you try to cloud the notability argument with it. Yes I am a noob. I am approaching 84,000 hands of real money games. I have done a lot of fairly rare things for my level of experience, including ITMing 7 consecutive tournaments and playing profitably 8 consecutive days of at least a half dozen tournaments each. In my first 800 tournaments, I turned $50 to over $800. Part of my rapid learning has been good use of poker tools. The ones I use are widely-used. They are highly recommended at twoplustwo.com, which is an international poker forum. It is highly discussed at DeucesCracked, whether it is a poker forum or not. DeucesCracked does appeal to the international audience and as such its nuerous mentions of the tool is a relevant consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never worked on athlete articles but common sense would tell me any NBA player with gets somewhat regular playing time would be notable. Simply being a poker tool used by some people is not automatically notable in the same way. People mention all sorts of things with regularity on poker forums - that doesn't make them notable. Forum postings are about the furthest thing from an RS I can imagine, and for good reason. DegenFarang (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What could be a better indicator that a poker tool is notable than that dozens of poker players use it and talk about using it on forums.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly Promotional and lacks reliable sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (but desperately needs cleanup). Reviewed by multiple independent sources that are cited in article. LotLE×talk 18:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Blatantly promotional and lacks reliable sources. TonyTheTiger's receipt of $99 worth of goods in exchange for creating this article is perhaps the most revolting instance of COI I have encountered in several years of editing. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we still ignore IPs in AFD discussions?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. IPs don't count in RFA and RFBs. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I don't know much about the reliability of these sites, but three of the reviews [21] [22] [23] appear to engage in enough critical thinking, and only [24] appears a mere advertorial. So, despite the obvious WP:COI#Financial issues with the creator of this article, a NPOV version can be written. TonyTheTiger, who appears to be only financially motivated to edit this (in that he didn't seem to even understand the main market for this software at the beginning of the AfD) should definitely WP:DISENGAGE from editing the article though. The fact that we don't have articles on more notable Poker software is an argument to create those articles, not to delete this one. Pcap ping 22:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Perhaps Tony can create those articles too for $100 a pop? Might as well solicit some sports tipping sites and discount Nike shoe e-stores while he's at it. Hazir (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. This is blatantly promotional, and we're not an ad service. UnitAnode 03:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I do not believe the subject passes notability standards. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reviews found by Pcap. Appears to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, horrible COI issues aside (and Tony really should have known better than to do this), I'm not sure that a handful of reviews demonstrate the sort of coverage that indicates notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Do you mean non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources? I don't see why reviews don't meet that requirement. And COI, especially the (now) disclosed COI, isn't a reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 13:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - for a variety of reasons - COI, advertising, questionable notability - this one sets off every red flag in my book. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, came past here a couple of days ago and the COI aside the bar for notability is not met. Darrenhusted (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was not going to joint this discussion but the wrong buttons were pushed. I went searching for any notability guidelines that might apply for products in the area. There are none, but several failed ones. I don't see this article meeting the points suggested in those failed proposals. There is one essay that probably covers this and this article does not meet the criteria laid out there. It is correct that WP:COI is not a reason to delete. However WP:COI with WP:ADVERT issues is. Add to that the questions raised about meeting WP:RS and WP:N and deletion seems to be the wisest choice at this time. Maybe in the future when those issues can be resolved the article can be created, but for for now it should go. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for finding the software essay. That will give me something to look at in hopes of reformulating the article in the future.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete for both articles. Obvious consensus to delete Computhink, and only a "weak" keep vote for the software product with two other editors argue the sourcing is insufficient to establish notability. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Computhink[edit]

Computhink (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 business that provides Electronic Content Management (ECM) / Document Management solutions for secure information sharing and compliance. Already proposed for deletion (not by me) and contested. Google News finds a fair number of hits: but I see nothing more than press releases, routine announcements of personnel changes, or litigation documents. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following page for a software product of this business:

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

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

That article's references are all to a single online publication, a Business Solutions magazine online, which does not sound like it represents the sort of broad readership needed to sustain an article on a commercial product. Google News results for the product are also not particularly helpful, either.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.

• Weak keep for ViewWise, weak delete for the company. The software is covered a little in a book on GroupWise [25], and seems to be so in a similar books that are not viewable in google books. Also reviewed [26] in PCQuest and [27] Express Computer. Merging to GroupWise would be unwieldy since they also support MS Office more recently. Article in Chicago Sun-Times looks like it covers both the company and the product. There are a few more like this in that newspaper and in Daily Herald (Arlington Heights). Pcap ping 05:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Virillion (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC), could not understand.[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as this article fails WP:SPAM. None of the source cited are reliable; they all orginate from the company's own press releases. Self-promotion is not the route to establishing notability in accordance with WP:CORP, nor are routine news reports evidence of notability in accordance with WP:NTEMP. Notability to come, perhaps. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 11:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Killswitch Engage Tour (2009/2010)[edit]

Killswitch Engage Tour (2009/2010) (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 concert tour. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. No assertion of notability or reliable sources to support it. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't Rolling Stone and blabbermouth.net considered reliable? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References were added after the nomination. However, they do not establish notability for the tour itself. Only the band or the album. Little mention is made of the actual tour, which is required to satisfy GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 20:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Intelligentsium 01:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment: Not enough opinion have been expressed to gauge consensus adequately. Intelligentsium 01:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article includes sources that indicate notability of the tour.--PinkBull 16:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a tour guide. What the hell is this? Why is there a 6 page list of tour dates for crying out loud? BURN IT WITH FIRE, PLEASE. JBsupreme (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crisantes[edit]

Crisantes (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 entertainer. Does not meet WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC or WP:ENT requirements. Warrah (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.  fetchcomms☛ 22:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Warrah. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 22:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep valid disambig page. I merged Drowning (disambiguation) to this page as they are really the same word and I see no point of both disambig pages. (WP:NAC) CTJF83 chat 08:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drown (disambiguation)[edit]

Drown (disambiguation) (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)

Is this disambiguation page really necesary? RadManCF (talk) 18:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge with Drowning (disambiguation) I think it is necessary now, (I've just added two more entries - so it now has four as opposed to two when the AFD began) - but a merge would be OK. ϢereSpielChequers 19:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep contains several entries, all of which are plausible connections to the topic. Entirely reasonable disambiguation page. Hut 8.5 19:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No problem with a merge. Hut 8.5 21:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Looks necessary to me. EALacey (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per WP:DPAGES. This isn't a suitable deletion candidate. Holly25 (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Actually, creating this page may have been a mistake, since Drowning (disambiguation) includes people with the surname Drown. The plan now should be do make sure that the information is properly combined, and the redirect for Drown goes to the disambiguation page, and not to the Drowning article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also notice Drown (surname), yet another disambiguation page. Holly25 (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it perhaps make more sense to keep this page, and merge Drowning (disambiguation) and Drown (surname) here? "Drown" being the common root? Holly25 (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems to make good sense to me, too. Holly25, would you do it?--DThomsen8 (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was just an idea in the case that a merge was definitely happening. The three pages are looking pretty well separated now. Holly25 (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Drown (surname) is not a disambiguation page. It is an anthroponymy list article. The name holders should not be merged into the dab page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not a mistake.

  (Even tho from a technical and usability point of view the execution was botched. As noted by a colleague, embedded w/in their Keep argument, the two useful changes possible were:

  1. Equal Dab'n, with the Dab at Drown instead of Drown (disambiguation)
  2. Primary-topic Dab'n, with HatNote Dab using ((Redirect)) at Drowning (now added)

  (As executed, tho, here was no link to Drown (disambiguation), and thus no way for most users to realize that a Dab existed, rendering it virtually useless. As the names suggest, the choice between the two approaches rests on whether "Drowning" is the topic most of the users who type in "drown" want -- and not just "the most users": just being in first place is not enuf. Unless the convenience -- to those who are seeking the "Drowning" article, when they get directly to it -- outweighs the inconvenience -- to all the others , when they have to read a HatNote and click on its lk before seeing the Dab page -- the Dab page should have the un-suffixed title so that everyone goes straight to the Dab.)

  The problems in the details of the Dab's creation are irrelevant. The creator obviously opined that the affinity of "Drown" to "Drowning" is weaker than our previous arrangement acknowledged, and that would be a reasonable contention (not a mistake) even if the Keep opinions were not so dominant.
  --Jerzy•t 21:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  

  • WP:Dab#Combining terms on disambiguation pages is not definitive, but it strongly urges against Merge, by giving all those cases where combining is worth considering, without including -ing and -ed. "Drown" is far less tied to "Drowing" than "The Cure" is to "Cure".
    --Jerzy•t 21:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 20:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep there are several entries and this is a valid dab. I wouldn't support a merge, as there are several on each dab. The surname page shouldn't simply be a dab, and hopefully in time it'll contain more info. Boleyn2 (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as is, but should Drown redirect to Drowning? Other than that issue, I am quite content with the content after improvements by myself and others on the various pages involved.--DThomsen8 (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drown should probably redirect to Drown (disambiguation), since that page most directly reflects the search term and it still has links to Drowning if that's what the user actually meant. Then, with Drowning no longer the primary target for Drown, the Drown (disambiguation) line at the top of Drowning can be removed (there are two disambiguation lines there at the moment). Does that sound reasonable? Holly25 (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds reasonable to me. My problem is that I don't remember how to edit a redirect page, or I would do it myself. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. When you get redirected, there's a line underneath the article title with "(redirected from {pagename})", if you click on the link in that line you get to the redirect page and can edit it. Holly25 (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drown, as WP:DABNAME makes clear, has unacceptably been redirected to Drown (disambiguation). (Rdr'n between them must go in the opposite direction.) Rather than disruptively move the nominated Dab pg during the AfD, i have reverted the change & installed the HatNote ((Redirect|Drown)) that will, in place, read

    "Drown" redirects here. For other uses, see Drown (disambiguation).

  Whether Drown should be the Dab (my opinion), or Rdr to the HatNote'd article (my interim solution), shouldn't complicate this AfD debate.
  --Jerzy•t 21:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  

• Keep. Disambiguates different articles than "Drowning". -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but merge in Drown (surname) as a subsection, unless there can be cncylopecid material on the surname apart from a list. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:46, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Once separated, there is no reason to merge an anthroponymy list article back into a disambiguation page. They should be separated, and usually the only reason not to is because no one has bothered to yet. Once an editor has bothered, the article and non-article should stand. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:55, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I've now expanded the surname article, so it's clearly not a dab. Boleyn2 (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drown (surname) is not an article of the normal sort, but a WP:Set index article, where more substantial prose is welcome but not required. The argument to merge it for lack of prose ignores the fundamental and thoro'ly discussed design decision to support the SIA page type. What i find a particularly pertinent point for that discussion is that Dabs exist to dab'ate topics that, but for competitors, could have had the Dab'd title. Frank Drown's bio (and others on the surname page) not only could not have been titled "Drown", each also is unimaginably far from being a person like Immanuel Kant, whose bio is entitled to a Rdr from Kant. They doesn't belong on a Dab, but that separate list including them is quite appropriate.
    --Jerzy•t 21:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    
• Keep and either move to Drown or redirect Drown to Drowning with a hatnote linking to both disambig pages. If there is no primary topic for the term "drown," the disambiguation page should be at the title Drown. If the primary topic for "drown" is "drowning", then Drown should redirect to Drowning. It's improper for the primary topic to redirect to a title with "(disambiguation)". See WP:D and specifically WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Propaniac (talk) 16:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. I'd mention in particular WP:DABNAME.
    --Jerzy•t 21:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    
• Keep. There are still worse problems on WP than the long neglect of the fact that the meanings of "Drown" are broader than those of "Drowning", but this one is worth fixing.
  --Jerzy•t 21:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  

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

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

The result was speedy close in accordance with WP:BEBOLD. Nominator blanked the page minutes before listing here. Article has existed as a redirect for 3 months. I will AGF on the nominator's part, restore the redirect, and relist at RfD shortly. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BR Class 152[edit]

BR Class 152 (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-existent British Rail class of diesel multiple unit. Also this article is orphaned. Sunil060902 (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a placeholder. We don't do placeholders. JBsupreme (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Nothing on the page... The Arbiter^★_★^★ 18:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Article is still being repaired, but foreign-language sources are improving. Notability seems established by links to movies it has been used in. Not completely promotional at the moment. Needs more work. closing as No Consensus to Delete (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebro (software)[edit]

Cerebro (software) (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)

Promotion for non-notable software product, article by single-purpose user with possible conflict of interest. I have been unable to find any significant coverage, and the article gives none. Haakon (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep - At the moment, all the articles about Cerebro so far only in Russian, i added more articles (three short of them in English) in the links section, give us a little time and we will have articles and reviews in English. Number of users (working under movies w/ VFX) that used Cerebro - already large enough! I also would like to actively participate in wikipedia life to add and edit all stuff about other software for VFX and CG.--Khar khar (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC) — Khar khar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• • There is no requirement that sources be in English, FYI. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sources in English are preferable, but if the sources simply are in Russian, that doesn't make it non-notable in an international Encyclopedia. Some topics simply are not discussed primarily in English, but are still discussed. LotLE×talk 08:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Blogs are blogs, even if they are in Russian. Where is the non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications? JBsupreme (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for remove the link to the forum, you're right, it was not necessary! Rigth now in the links section only 2 from 10 looks like blog. By the way, I see good text in 18 issue of Cinefex (russia version) in part about «Black lightning» (producer Timur Bekmambetov) it is normal paper journal, this short toc. How can I add it as a reference?--Khar khar (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I create ref. to Cinefex article--Khar khar (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Two Plates[edit]

The Two Plates (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)

Related to this AfD. I can't find any coverage in secondary reliable sources to demonstrate that this film is notable. The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, readding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that the IP may be a sockpuppet), bringing to light that every other film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These six AfDs are also related.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shattered (2010 film)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlita's Secret
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang Girl
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F4:Vortex
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Betty
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treasure Raiders

That's all of them so far. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources have shown the person is notable. (Non-admin closure) Intelligentsium 22:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Wayne Hull[edit]

David Wayne Hull (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)

Although this KKK leader and convicted criminal has several media references, etc., this seems like a WP:BLP1E of a person who is not, in the end, encyclopedically notable.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a cut and paste from its source. Bonewah (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Multi-agency Joint Terrorism Task Force is focusing on domestic terrorists and Hull is one among the examples. This article was created less than an hour ago and the editors who want to delete it have not allowed time to flesh it out. For the record, it now has three sources; Glenfarclas does not know the history and is guessing without factual knowledge whether this person is worthy of encylopedic reference. Hull was preparing to blow up a clinic. Skywriter (talk) 20:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Regrettably, fleshing out the article will not make this man more notable, sorry. I looked for sources, but they are either primary documents (like the very short mention in the FBI publication you provided), non-reliable sources like the ADL, or routine news coverage as would be expected in a BLP1E situation. It's not like I didn't give this deletion nomination a modicum of thought, and you'll notice I sent it straight to AfD rather than tagging him for speedy deletion.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The three sources only confirm that this is a clear BLP1E situation. Furthermore, it still contains large sections that were clipped from the FBI report. If you fix it I will be happy to change my mind. Bonewah (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There are more than 8500 links to this individual even assuming some of them refer to others with same name. "Large sections from the FBI report" is one paragraph, which I will rewrite. There's discussion at the Ku Klux Klan article whether contemporary Klansmen are terrorists and whether law enforcement goes after them. The Hull article et al. is evidence of answers to both questions. By Glenfaclas logic, only when terrorist successfully kills someone are they noteworthy. I give law enforcement some credit for averting tragedy.Skywriter (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep major figure of historic importance, as shown by the references available. I do not see what is wrong with using language from the FRBI report--its US-PD. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable, and not a BLP-1E situation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would you say are his other claims to fame? Bonewah (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Notable. Added another Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ref to the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to "keep". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prespa e Vogël and Golloborda[edit]

Prespa e Vogël and Golloborda (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 page mentions two regions that do not exist in the Geography of Albania, but they do exist in the minds of the macedo-bulgarian nationalists. These maps are invented by dubious wikipedians and include Korce and Pogradec as places with Bulgarian and Macedonian minorities. The official census of macedonian minorities is 5K. That's it. This area includes populations of more than $200k. In addition this page will entail the creation of the page of Albanian Territories in the Republic of Macedonia, which the macedonians (and albanians) should avoid --Sulmues (Talk) --Sulmues 20:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. While I do agree with some of the reasons outlined in your comment (like the fact that the territories are not linked geographically; the modest numbers of the minority populations etc.), I have to suggest toning your words a bit. Making threats to answer this article with another one is far from any reasonable behaviour around here. If you do not like the content of an article, you do not threaten to create the opposite now. It just should not happen. --Laveol ^T 23:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's not a threat and I'm truly sorry if you take it as such. I am referring to the risk that the Albanians start writing similar articles for their inhabited territories in Macedonia with some similarly invented maps. They will feel entitled to to it, because if 5k macedo-bulgarians live in Albania more than 500k albanians live in Macedonia. If the article is similar to this, i.e. including cities that have almost no minorities such as Korca and Pogradec, the mirror article will include half of Macedonia with a made up map that will be worse than this. And it will be done with the justification of the par condicio. Many administrators will have to agree with it because the arguments will be strong. Sulmues (Talk)--Sulmues 13:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If it's just the map that's bothering you, why not just remove the map? One map/one sentence/one paragraph can be removed, instead of deleting the article, if there are no problems with the remaining material in the article.--Ptolion (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentIt's not only the map: that would be a reason for a split if the maps were accurate, which they aren't. The regions are including areas that are inhabited by Albanians and have no macedonians whatsoever. Those areas include a total population of $200k (Korca is 70k, Pogradec is 25k) the rest is around 100k and only 5k out of that 200k are macedonians. And many of the places listed don't have a Macedonian population but are Vlach. Sulmues (Talk)--Sulmues 19:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Do we forget that these small regions are separated because they, geographically, belong to the historical region of Macedonia? And also, the region has a good number of Slavic (Macedonian) speakers. We will see how much Macedonians are in Albania after the change of the census policy, do not fight about it. I would keep the article, for the well known historical and linguo-ethnological reasons. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: If the reason for deleting is that these are two small regions, we can split the article into two and the problem is solved. Just we need to put tag for splitting--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know what historical region of Macedonia you are talking about. Could you please be more specific as to the time of that region?Sulmues (Talk)--Sulmues 14:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia (region) --MacedonianBoy (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That whole article Macedonia (region) is based on the Greater Macedonia map ( File:Greater_Macedonia.png) that is not a historical map, did not exist at any point of time, but comes only from a file created by a Wikipedia user (in this case Wiki-vr. I also can create a map call it Greater Albania include half of Europe and build an article saying that there are some minorities other than Albanian. As a matter of fact that map is also to be deleted because it describes a region that makes no sense. It is just confusing and is staying there because both greeks and macedon editors want to make this Macedonia "Region" as big as possible so that both of your dreams of grandeur are bigger as well. If you check the other maps that are historical, both from antiquity and middle ages Macedonia is in completely different places that the Greater Macedonia map. So if you are claiming that Prespa and Golloborda are part of the Greater Macedonia map which was built by a Wikipedia user, you are just confirming my words that the whole Macedonia (region) is a phony invention and such is Prespa and Golloborda article. Sulmues (Talk)--Sulmues 14:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Sulmues, that perception of Macedonia (region) is dates back to the 19th century (see this map from 1885 for example). I admit, it is inherently aribtrary and random though, since no state, or any other historical entity for that matter, has ever existed with those borders. Nevertheless, that map does depict "Macedonia" as understood by Balkan Slav peoples; Albanians and Greeks understand Macedonia in a different way.--Ptolion (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two things that should definitely be changed in this article are 1) make clear that this "region" is just how Bulgarians/Macedonians have traditionally understood the area, and 2) change that obviously POV passage according to which the area is "primarily populated by Macedonians and Albanians but also by a small number of Aromanians..." which seems to be an attempt to give the impression that the 5,000 Macedonians are the majority in the region. Also, I don't think that the list of settlements is necessary since the article should be about the irredentist concept rather than pure geography.--Ptolion (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you are saying it is a map created by the Macedonian nationalists. The article should be deleted or linked to United Macedonia as it includes a nationalistic map, not a historical one. It is equivalent to Greater Albania's using this map [28] that confirms the National Renaissance of Albania aspirations of being within in a state within the four Albanian vilayets (Janina, Manastir, Skopje and Shkoder). And those WERE historical regions within the Ottoman Empire, so the maps ARE historical, contrary to the nationalist macedon map brought here: such map is based on XIXth century slavic dreams.Sulmues (Talk)--Sulmues 16:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Albanian vilayets", LOL :) To be fair, Bulgarians/Macedonians claim that their idea of Macedonia is based on the boundaries of the Ottoman Uskub (Skopje), Manastir (Bitola) and Selanik (Thessaloniki) vilayets. Same old rubbish.--Ptolion (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with you. Only that Manastir and Uskub were never in Christian hands until 1912. But it's irrelevant. That's why these maps should be in the nationalistic sites Greater Albania and United Macedonia, and that's it. Sulmues (Talk)--Sulmues 20:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article is sourced and is also often referred to by this name by various Macedonian nationalists: [29], [30]. The article also provides information about the settlements with a Slavic minority in Albania, which is also sourced. I agree that the irredentist usage of the term must be made clearer, but this is no reason for deletion. Kostja (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that, if the article is to be kept, the list of settlements should be removed. This article is about the irredentist term, not geography, and there is no source that there is significant Slavic presence in all those settlements.--Ptolion (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The map at the bottom describes those settlements as having a Slavic population. Kostja (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, that map isn't actually supported by its sources, therefore there is indeed no reference for these settlements. In this case they should be removed along with the map. Kostja (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep notable irredentist term, what the article contains as being debated above is not a reason to delete - it should contain what can be referenced, just like any other article.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, default to "keep". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure Raiders[edit]

Treasure Raiders (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)

Related to this AfD. I can't find any coverage in secondary reliable sources to demonstrate that this film is notable. The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, readding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that the IP may be a sockpuppet), bringing to light that every other film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These AfDs are also related.

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shattered (2010 film)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlita's Secret
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gang Girl
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/F4:Vortex
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Two Plates
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Betty

That's all of them so far. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This film was primarily intended for Russian market and had significant coverage mostly in Russian sources. See news aggregators: Google News, Яндекс.Новости ("Форсаж да Винчи" is the localized film title). Notably, there are Kommersant review, Gazeta.ru review, Nashfilm.ru review, proficinema.ru review. Trycatch (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Icarus (band)[edit]

Kid Icarus (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)

Contested Prod, non-notable band. Ridernyc (talk) 17:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete A7/band with no notability asserted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Spin magazine found them notable enough to write about them. And about 150 views per month show that people are referring to the article for info on a regular basis. Kindofdavish (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One small article on Spin.com [31] falls a bit short for notability. Ridernyc (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find anything with significant coverage besides Spin, but one source isn't enough. Joe Chill (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to Keep: Per Gongshow's links except for the Allmusic bio. Joe Chill (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this article is deleted album artiles would also be included under CSD A9. Ridernyc (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I believe there's enough coverage out there for this to meet WP:GNG and WP:BAND. In addition to the aforementioned Spin profile, there's an Allmusic bio (along with reviews of two of their releases -- [32][33]), and another album review at PopMatters. I'll incorporate these into the article shortly. I've expanded the article with these sources.  Gongshow ^Talk 23:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very easily passess both general and subject-specific notability guidelines due to multiple significant coverage in reliable sources. The article already cited the allmusic bio (with 2 reviews on the same site a couple of clicks away) and SPIN article at the time of nomination, so the AFD is itself a little puzzling and the speedy delete !vote above is utterly mystifying.--Michig (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hear, hear. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Another lazy nomination, proposer clearly does not understand that most articles need expansion rather than deletion. Reliable sources exist which proove notability. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Gong's good work.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Michig's sensible comments. Drmies (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Casino Job[edit]

The Casino Job (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)

Related to this AfD. This is sort of a pre-emptive strike to prevent re-creation (something the article creator has done before). Therefore, I'm removing the prods and bumping this up to an AfD. From my prod: "No indication of notability." The article creator, Indie Movies, is constantly adding (and, in some cases, re-adding previously deleted) non-notable films and has been brought up on the conflict of interest noticeboard twice now (the latest showing that they may have an IP sockpuppet), bringing to light that every film is released by Maverick Entertainment Group. Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I screwed up any coding. Twinkle fouled up the AfD and I had to copy-paste it from another AfD because I wasn't sure what would happen if I used Twinkle to nominate again. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 21:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No sources to be found. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NF. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per coverage in Las Vegas Weekly, Review Journal 1, and Review Journal 2. Let's find some more. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This discussion was only listed today, as it was missed previously. --Taelus (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, MichaelQSchmidt's sources establish notability. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Schmidt's diffs. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 02:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but trim down and add the proper sources. --Reinoutr (talk) 15:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the sources look okay I guess, I'm willing to give this indie the benefit of the doubt. JBsupreme (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salvatore Di Vittorio[edit]

Salvatore Di Vittorio (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)

Created and maintained by Sdvittorio (talk · contribs) who is suspected to be the subject, probable self-promotional article by non-notable musician. Italian article has already been deleted for this very reason. Jubilee♫clipman 23:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Poorly sourced, no evidence of notability, apparent COI (self-promotion), peacock terminology. --Deskford (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Actually better sourced than others. Two third-party reliable refs were added on the 3rd ([34], [35]), and I briefly looked around and added this one today. Passes notability requirements per WP:Music. I tried to clean up for neutrality. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Could be a case of self-promo that could be cleaned op then? It is interesting, however, that even the Italian Wiki have voted him out: if he is going to be notable anywhere it is surely going to be Italy. This one might get interesting, given that the article is actually quite sustantial and people are trying to source/clean it. --Jubilee♫clipman 16:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the only valid arguments for deletion are a lack of verifiable notability, pure original reseearch or a hoax. Peacock terms, COI, etc. are not valid grounds for deletion They are valid grounds for cleaning up the article. AfDs should not be used for forcing clean up or 'punishing' peacockery. Voceditenore (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - I am not sure if it is technically copyvio—ie which came first?—but the following website appears to have very similar content: http://www.amc.net/SalvatoreDiVittorio The other websites I have found so far only make passing mention of this subject as Orchestra x featuring Salvatore Di Vittorio. Any better sources? --Jubilee♫clipman 13:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:18, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure how I missed this before, but the entire text seems to be lifted from www.salvatoredivittorio.com/bio.html and thus a copyright violation. --Deskford (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. This article was under an edit war by the nominator and User:2005. The Deletion process has NOT been followed, as the article hasnt been tagged for clean up or expansion. (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 01:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve_Badger[edit]

Steve_Badger (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 person. Has not had a significant cash in more than 7 years, prior to the start of the poker boom. Once un-sourced material was removed, article contains next to nothing about him.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DegenFarang (talk • contribs)

• Delete - short, non notable. —  Cargoking  talk  17:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Article shrunk and attacked by editor with history of abusive edits to multiple BLP articles. Part of editor's wikihounding activities. World series of Poker winner with interviews, profiles online as well as quoted as an expert by the New York Times, etc. 2005 (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No valid deletion reasons given. The subject of the article is notable for multiple World Series of Poker wins, and a quick Google search shows significant amounts of media coverage. (The New York Times article alone demonstrates notability.) Length of time since a "significant cash" and word count for the article aren't valid deletion reasons. Rray (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well known player with a World Series of Poker bracelet. TheTakeover (talk) 00:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No RS's for much of the information that is/was in the article. Likely a self published article by User 2005. Subject is not notable in the way the article wording makes him out to be. If re-worded, only using RS's, I may change my vote. DegenFarang (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either the subject is notable or not. AfD is not the place to discuss article content, but objective criteria of subject notability (existence of, not correct use of, reliable sources). That said, I was unable to find any evidence of the subject's meeting the inclusion guidelines after a good-faith search. ^Bongo_matic 02:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well known poker player and bracelet winner.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only reliable source given is NYT article. Article (which was republished elsewhere) does not provide any significant coverage of Badger (although it relies on him as a source). Does not meet inclusion guidelines. ^Bongo_matic 02:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the diff of the actual article, before DegenFarang's violation of the 3RR policy with his fourth revert of the day. It includes refs to the New York Times and Conjelco.com, the official online source for the World series of Poker from 1995 to 2000 (during which the refed incident took place). Additionally the Hendon Mob has been determined to be a reliable source because Cardplayer Magazine uses its data. In addition to the interview external linked, there are numerous profiles of the subject, Cardplayer Magazine article plus quoted in articles here and here and here and [36], etc. A quick search also digs up The San Franciso Chronicle and plenty of other quotes and references on poker websites. The new York Times, San Francisco Chronicle and Cardplayer are all reliable sources that easily establish notability. 2005 (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hendon Mob may be reliable, but stats do not constitute "significant coverage". One of the Cardplayer references is by, not about the subject—not independent. Two others simply contain a brief quote, and another a longer quote—no coverage at all. The last Cardplayer reference makes only passing mention. Of all of the articles, the Chronicle comes closest, but in my view it does not provide sufficient coverage to raise him to the level of notability. ^Bongo_matic 02:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When an independant reliable source chooses to publish an article by a person, that is a notable act. It is one step beyond simply quoting the person. Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic_criteria, WP:ATH and Wikipedia:POKER#Biography article notability criteria where a WSOP victory alone is viewed as generally notable. In addition the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Conjelco/WSOP and Cardplayer coverage etablish notability even beyond the WSOP win. 2005 (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. My main criterion for poker players in general is more than one major win or high finish. He's got some smaller wins/cashes, but to balance that, he plays Omaha, which gets very very little news coverage. It's a no limit hold'em world. I haven't seen him on any of the regular TV shows (hold'em of course), and there aren't any in-depth articles about him. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tied for most wins in poker history is more than "one major win". His personal profile makes it clear he primarily played 1993-2000 and he doesn't play much poker anymore, so like all the dead or retired players he's not going to be on TV now. There is more to poker than No Limit Hold'em, and more to it than what is going on today on TV. Notability is not temporary. 2005 (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - How did this even get nominated!? Multiple cashes and plenty of reliable sources as noted by others in this discussion. Recent edits to this article should also be looked at, as it now has some ridiculous sounding text like the very first line, "Steve Badger is a poker player" - LOL. Hazir (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article is reliably sourced (cardplayer magazine, sf chronicle, ny times, etc etc) and the subject is a notable poker bracelet winner from before the "poker explosion" and increased online interest (and sourcing.) The article was gutted before being nominated - classy. --guyzero | talk 17:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious Keep While it is not an official guidline/policy, it is the WP:POKER's stance that winning a WSOP bracelet makes one notable. By winning said bracelet, he has eched his name as one Poker's elites. See Wikipedia:POKER#Biography_article_notability_criteria.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep plenty of reliable sources, major championships. I see no problem with notability. The deleted text in the article's history logs right before this nomination is quite disturbing. Royalbroil 01:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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