< 29 January 31 January >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Swarm(Talk) 01:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Miki Higashino[edit]

Miki Higashino (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 biography is relying upon a single source, named "Square Enix Music Online", which is a site which relies upon user generated content and is not officially affiliated with Square Enix in any capacity. I am unable to locate any further evidence of non-trivial coverage, specifically from reliable third party publications. Google News Archives yields me absolutely nothing of use. It is quite possible that sources do exist in a foreign language, and if those can be found (provided they are substantial and reliable) I will happily withdraw. JBsupreme (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2008/08/irish-game-musi/ mentions Miki favorably twice and links to
http://mitsuda.cocoebiz.com/friends/higashino.html which is an interview of Miki conducted by Yasunori Mitsuda
She also gets an 'Honorable Mention' in http://music.ign.com/articles/937/937683p1.html
But besides that, I didn't find much, even though I filtered out a lot of results. I suppose her notability stands and falls with that of her work, and not her person. --Gwern (contribs) 15:44 31 January 2010 (GMT)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 01:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TOTAL SLACKER[edit]

TOTAL SLACKER (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The cited sources don't appear to show that this band is notable per WP:MUSIC. Gzmanagement About the statement of the writer's identity, we are a independent publicity firm called Grant and Zimmer llc. We in no way are affiliated with the artists management and or its agents.Gzmanagement Also, it appears that the article author is the artist's management company, see WP:COI. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

criteria # 11 Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network : http://thefmly.com/2010/02/01/public-education-pla ylist-4/ also :http://www.wmua.org/tracks/view/160557 ( univ of mass radio ,,, and NYU radio ) and... critera #1 "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gzmanagement (talk • contribs) 21:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the new yorker magazine clip, is indeed REAL, and is credit enough. Please see the ava. link provided in the reference section of this Stub article, under "glasslands gallery", it states 1 sentences about this band. The VICE article is written by nicholas gazin, the 3rd photo on this link provided, has a published paragraph by this author, stating total slacker: "the band to watch." period. http://www.viceland.com/blogs/photos/2010/01/25/four-good-bands-death-by-audio/img_2480/ along with these 2 references, here is one more from a highly notable press : the village voice, NYC : http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/archives/2010/01/less_artists_mo.php (please note, the bottom of the 1st paragraph, reading, and i quote: "Chinatown's St. James Church, where Brooklyn Vegan points out they have a show booked this Friday with the Beets, Tony Castles, Beach Fossils, and Total Slacker". --VILLAGE VOICE

(User:Gzmanagement Gzmanagementtalk) regardless, if these articles in the new yorker, actually were not specifically about this band, they WERE mentioned in these leading publications, and will continue to do so. Here is one more major web-based music blog centered around the Brooklyn, NY music scene, this is a Feature article about Total Slacker: http://www.jezebelmusic.com/8889/total-slacker-total-slacker-demo/ (User:Gzmanagement Gzmanagementtalk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gzmanagement (talk • contribs) 17:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC) another FEATURE ARTICLE, showing proof of ascension: http://microphonememoryemotion.wordpress.com/2009/11/18/total-slacker-on-thursday-nite/ Gzmanagement[reply]

THE NEW YORKER AND VILLAGE VOICE, do not publish any info about bands, except for they're tasteful decision of who should be mentioned. not everyone gets mentioned in these magazines-newspapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gzmanagement (talk • contribs) 19:02, 6 February 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 Withdrawn by nominator Niteshift36 (talk) 07:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Stilwell[edit]

Frank Stilwell (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)

Simply fails WP:BIO. Subject was a minor character in the Tombstone/OK Corral saga that achieved little in the way of notability on his own. Article had some refs that no longer function (mostly to non-reliable sources). It does cite one book as a reference (although without any inline citations) and in explaining it's relevence, even the article author refers to Stilwell as a "minor Tombstone character". Niteshift36 (talk) 23:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Stilwell (note they spelled his name wrong) has a life-sized statue in Tucson. http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM1QE7 How many of the forgettable soccer goalkeepers that WP keeps track of as BLP figures, have a public statue of them, anywhere?

Not a great deal is known about F. Stilwell, although more is being collected as time goes by. I suggest you give it some moretime. He is a pivotal figure. He probably murdered Morgan Earp, or else was in the party that did. His murder by Wyatt Earp (one of just two men Wyatt was thought to have killed without assistance) is the reason for the arrest warrants issued for Earp, Holliday, Johnson and McMasters, that finally drove Earp and Holliday out of Arizona, never to return. As such, somebody has had to play Stilwell in every film about Tombstone and Earp.

People want to know about Stilwell. His Wiki page was viewed 1837 times in just the month of Dec. 2009, and gets 50 hits a day or so. http://stats.grok.se/en/200912/Frank%20Stilwell How many BLP figures can you say the same of? The major source of the public's correct info on the man (like his name spelling) is actually the page you want to delete. He gets about 40,000 hits on Google, most of them to the right guy. But many of them are due to this page. SBHarris 05:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Talking about what he probably did or might have done doesn't get it. Ghits and number of views do not equal notability. What would make him notable was significant coverage, not always being in the periphery. Yes, he's been portrayed in movies. It was always a minor role played by a minor actor. That's because he was a figure in what happened, but not a central one. More time? The article has been there for 3 and a half years and the man has been dead for 128 years. How much more time is needed to demonstrate notability? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, being a deputy sheriff isn't that notable. Especially back then when you could be a deputy in one city and a bank robber in the next, then a deputy again. He is mentioned in books. Nobody denies that. But most of the coverage is trivial, not the significant coverage that WP:N requires. He is known soley because he was around notable people and a notable event, not because of anything he achieved. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I count more than one event with this guy: murder and acquittal in 1877; fired as deputy sheriff in 1881; arrest for robbery in 1881; murder of Morgan Earp; killed by Wyatt Earp. They're multiple events placing him as an enduring part of the historical record. But I'll admit its not a strong case and there is a lack of sourcing (hence my weak keep). --Mkativerata (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, first, remove "murder of Morgan Earp" from the list. That hasn't been proven and he wasn't convicted of it. What someone probably or might have done isn't going to fly. A list of non-notable events doesn't equal notable. Murder and acquital? Not notable. Millions of people have committed murders and aren't notable. This is especially true when the person he was accused (and acquitted of) murdering was not a notable person. See WP:PERP. Fired from being a deputy? Come on....getting fired from a job isn't notable. Arrested for robbery? Again, millions have been and aren't notable and he was never convicted of it. See WP:PERP. The murder of Morgan Earp, if there was very strong evidence or a conviction, would probably make a case for inclusion under WP:N/CA. But there isn't very strong evidence or a conviction. Murdered by Wyatt is the strongest part of that argument, but leads more to a redirect to Wyatt Earp than a stand alone article of an otherwise non-notable man. We redirect victims of notable killers all the time. What weakens this immensly is that Earp wasn't the only one who shot him and that everyone charged was acquitted because Stilwell was "resisting arrest". So it wasn't really even a "murder". Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life. The actions were judged lawful. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Wyatt wasn't the only one who shot him. Wyatt used the shotgun and that would surely have been fatal. The other shots were anger shots. Wyatt himself doesn't even suggest he was trying to arrest Stilwell. Nor was he acquitted of the murder (that's what makes it a murder). He fled the territory, there never was a trial, and those warrants remained outstanding to the end of his life. Colorado refused to extradite Holliday, but on a technicality. We assume that might have happened to Wyatt, but nobody ever tested it, and Wyatt wasn't about to.

Stilwell, acquitted or not, was mentioned in many newspapers of the time, and seems likely to have been planning an assassination when he died (what else was he doing armed in the trainyard in the middle of the night? Trainspotting?). The multiple newspaper accounts for multiple events make him notable. His mention in multiple places in every book on Earp and Tombstone (of which there are a couple of dozen) make him notable. Far more notable than most of the bio subjects in Wikipedia. SBHarris 21:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Earp was CHARGED with murder, but was acquited of it. That means he was judged to have not committed a murder. That means Stilwell wasn't murdered, he was killed. And your own article says the Earp defense was that Stilwell was "resisting arrest". You're contradicting your article. Being mentioned in the news isn't notability. Significant coverage is the standard. If you have all these significant stories, where are they? Why aren't they in the article? And again, complaining about what other bios exist doesn't justify this one. Please stay focused on the issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disaggregating the events of a person's life and arguing that each event is individually non-notable does not prove that the individual him or herself is not notable. In my view, (very much on balance) Stilwell's life as a whole is notable and he has received significant coverage of it. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, a list of non-notable events don't equate notability. Further, where is the evidence of significant coverage? Being mentioned in a book or a news piece doesn't make you notable. Especially when the news piece is local and the person is acquitted of the event. Can you imagine what Wikipedia would look like if we had a bio for everyone who was arrested for murdering a non-notable person? Or if we had a bio for everyone arrested for bank robbery and it was covered by the local newspaper? That doesn't even take into account that he wasn't convicted of either one. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would it look like? WP would look like what it DOES look like. 14% of the BLP subjects here (more than 50,000 of 430,000 BLPs) have not a SINGLE citation. Most of the rest are obscure-- they certainly have had nobody play them in two films. Wyatt Earp Tombstone (And damn, they spelled his name wrong in both film credits). SBHarris 21:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a BLP. The L in BLP stands for LIVING. So BLP's are not the issue here. Why are you even talking about BLP's? And again, all you are doing is arguing that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which is not a valid reason for a keep. And yes, "John Dennis Johnston" is a minor actor. They used a minor actor because it's a minor role. Same with "Tomas Arana". Why? Because Stilwell is a minor character in the Tombstone saga. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If both are minor actors, why does one have a BLP? You should link names and see what you find. I expect you to go straight to Arana's page and PROD it, on the basis that he plays minor characters, who themselves aren't notable.

As to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS that is a severe misuse of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which you really should read. Including this part which states (please read this three times): "Thus 'inherent notability' is basically codification of OSE [Other stuff exists]." Another way of saying that the fact that a heck of a lot of other stuff exists, is one way of detecting what the WP:consensus on a given notability issue is. In fact, it is the only good way, and the example given is that high schools are notable but grade schools are not. Why? Because of the way WP has always done it, is why. The appeal that this is OTHERSTUFF backfires there, because OTHERSTUFF tells you how we do things, particularly in the area of notability. So you swim against the tide, here. SBHarris 23:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other views are needed. You can't tell if an Albanian is notable without asking some Albanians. I'll put neutral tags on the Earp and Holliday pages. Feel free to put RfC tags anywhere that YOU like. The more input the better on this, and I care not where it comes from, since it's bound to agree more with me than you. Sorry. SBHarris 02:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course other views are needed, which is why we are discussing this in public instead of on your talk page or mine. I don't know what you Albanians analogy is supposed to mean. I'm an American, this is American history. So I don't know what you're driving at Disregard, I see now, you're going to canvass for votes. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't toss around the word "canvass" lightly. I've done nothing in contravention to WP:CANVASS. You can do anything you like which doesn't violate that policy also. SBHarris 02:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike you, I don't make accusations without basis. I didn't say you did anything wrong. There is acceptable canvassing. Maybe you should read WP:CANVASS. But it is still canvassing. So my use of the word is entirely correct. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said it was 1E. He was around a number of events, but always a minor player. Oddly, the leade in the bio talks abotu his "more notable" brother, who doesn't have a bio. And you said yourself "mentions" Stilwell. That is trivial coverage. When you have a book with hundreds of pages. The bio has almost nothing in the form of references. If everything that is unreferenced is removed, this will be about 3 lines. Someone so "notable" shouldn't be that hard to find some reliable sources for (not the tripod sites and fan sites).Niteshift36 (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They do more than mention. For example the reference I bolded above gives a page or two to the coverage. Similarly, I also think it fits into the general tapestry as I explained above. Shadowjams (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book is 448 pages. A 'page or two" sure sounds more trivial than significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does everyone keep coming up with one event? I never based this on one event, especially since I don't believe he was important enough in that one event. This nom is based on a general lack of notability and lack of significant third party coverage, not WP:ONEVENT. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It will be interesting to see what happens when you get to Simon of Cyrene with all these arguments. SBHarris 02:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hastily formed network[edit]

Hastily formed network (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:Notability, since there is only a primary source for this topic. Please see the talk page for an expanded explanation. Joshua Scott (talk) 22:51, 30 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. Note: After discounting WP:SPAs by weighting together as one, consensus is for deletion. Cirt (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Schukoff[edit]

Alexander Schukoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable filmmaker, whose article on Wikipedia qualifies as Wikipedia:Autobiography since it was written by himself and his wife. Plus there are no sources for this article besides his own website and IMDb. --bender235 (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I might quote Wikipedia:Autobiography here: Many people exaggerate their own significance or notability above what third parties would think. That applies to you, as Schukoff's wife. --bender235 (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Please see this note (6), WP generally does not accept IMDB as a reliable source, especially when determining notability. Wine Guy Talk 18:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

notability: yes.

Comment but if it is considered to relative the reliability of IMDB sources that would lead to many deletions of members of the filmbusiness. And second establish a principle debate. At the back of this AfD?

Wasiliy (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 22:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whilst ther seems to be a dearth of English language sources that does not inn and of its self render Mr Schukoff un-notable. What we need is some one who can read German to check the sources (ther edo appear to0 be more then just IMBD).Slatersteven (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

principle debate question: The IMDB is the central data base for the filmbusiness worldwide. Like national-libraries for print publications, IMDB is an official register for movies that without exception have to be either aired to the public by national tv-channels , or were shown in the movies by listed film-distributors or screened at notable filmfestifals. At least - if standing not alone, added with (not always english) secondary sources those should reach notability status. just look at many wiki articles about for example french, italian or russian filmmakers...

Filmbuster (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC) — Filmbuster (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

And again, Wikipedia:Autobiography: Many people exaggerate their own significance or notability above what third parties would think. That applies to you, Mr. Schukoff. --bender235 (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and, in my experience here, some people underestimate it. They;re about as poor judges of the matter as can be imagined. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

I still see nothing in reliable sources which would establish Schukoff's notability per this guideline. Regarding the AfD on de.wikipedia, it is not relevant here; each WP has its own guidelines for notability and sources. The keep result there was justified as: "Schukoff has shot and produced films that were broadcast on ORF and 3sat. That's enough." It's not enough here. Wine Guy Talk 00:19, 4 February 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. JForget 02:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

100 Park Avenue Building[edit]

100 Park Avenue Building (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)

Unremarkable 12 story building. Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Google news and book hits limited to mentions of it as an address for the subject of those articles but no indication that this topic might meet notability guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 22:23, 30 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) 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lanzillotta[edit]

Michael Lanzillotta (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. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 22:04, 30 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) Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Hunt For Gollum[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    The Hunt For Gollum (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)

    Does not appear to meet WP:MOVIE guidelines; as this is an unofficial, undistributed fan film it would have to be etremely notable to be given an article here, and I see no evidence of this.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Any dissenting voices on this one? Open to discussion if there are.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You asked this question 2 hours and 24 minutes after nominating it, and after two other people had commented. In a discussion meant to last 7 days (or 5 days, I can never remember which). I found that surprising. Maybe wait a bit longer next time before asking if there are any dissenting voices? Anyway, my views: from what I can see, this fan film might not meet a specific notability guideline (SNG, here WP:MOVIE) but might well meet general notability guidelines (WP:GNG). Sometimes SNGs do a poor job on picking up on other coverage a topic may have received. I commented to this effect in a recent AfD discussion that involved the WP:MILHIST notability guidelines. I'm also looking at the references that were present when you nominated the article for deletion. That is not a badly-done article, so clearly the text can be retained somewhere, even if not under this title, as the information is verifiable and informative for people reading about this topic, even if the topic itself might be better summarised elsewhere (such as in an overview article on Tolkien fandom and other responses to Tolkien - the main articles for that are Tolkien fandom, Reception of J. R. R. Tolkien, Adaptations of The Lord of the Rings, and Works inspired by J. R. R. Tolkien). There are some individual articles like this one that may be borderline, such as Born of Hope and Fellowship!, but The Hunt for Gollum clearly made much more impact than those two. Carcharoth (talk) 04:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this article would be interesting and informative for a Lord of the Rings fan or researcher. Perhaps instead of deleting it, it could be re-categorized. Perhaps incorporated within the Middle Earth Portal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Middle-earth) in the category Middle Earth Adaptations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Middle-earth_adaptations).Psteichen (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's all please AGF and not accuse anyone of deliberately ignoring news coverage or failing to do research before a nom. Coverage alone does not normally establish notability for a film unless it is widely professionally distributed and has at least two full length reviews by nationally known critics. But if the consensus on this one is keep, then we keep. That's what discussion is for.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, it is any topic that might be sourced as notable through worldwide coverage in WP:reliable sources, film or not. The caveats at WP:NF, begin with the Wikipedia:NF#General principles stating "As with all subjects, a film should satisfy the general notability guideline"... which the topic most definitely does. The "indicative attributes" which you are quoting in good faith as if they were somehow mandates, are offered only to alert and encourage editors to circumstances that might be indicative of the wisdom of an expanded search for sources. Quite specifically, the preamble to that list states "The following are attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist:" As has already been demonstrated, numerous reliable sources exist that meet WP:N. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:05, 1 February 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 Nick Griffin. no information that's notable need be lost. All notability relates to the son. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Edgar Griffin[edit]

    Edgar Griffin (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:POLITICIAN; those sources available deal either with his son (irrelevant) or his sacking (WP:BLP1E). Ironholds (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    To say that expulsion from a political party constitutes notability to pass BLP1E? No. Agreed, but I'm not suggesting he's qualifying ONLY on the grounds of being expelled (though the natue of the expulsion is rather unusual, I think even a Lib Dem would agree). And the article says a lot more about E Griffin that that he was expelled from the Conservative Party. Emeraude (talk) 18:08, 2 February 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. DS (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Netypsy[edit]

    Netypsy (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 neologism per WP:NEO, unreferenced, zero coverage online. Prod contested by WP:SPA. MuffledThud (talk) 21:03, 30 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. Snow close, nominator appears to have withdrawn. n DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yesterday Was a Lie[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Yesterday Was a Lie (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)

    Does not appear to meet notability requirements. Film meets few, if any, of the requirements listed for movie notability at WP:MOVIE (no wide release, did not have two or more full-length reviews in national magazines, no obvious historical significance, etc.). Article was nominated for deletion in the past; the Keep result was reportedly skewed by socks. Only two editors appear to be actively editing this page through various sock accounts; one of them has bee banned completely; there does not appear to be any wide interest in the subject matter outside of the one or two editors who regularly edit the page.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This editor's !vote was changed below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I also note that this AfD was filed just 14 minutes after one of the sockpuppets mentioned aboved blanked their talk page[15] after having their request for unblocking turned down 3 times[16][17][18], further evidence that this may be a retaliatory nomination. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That aside does this film meet the criteria for notaility? It seems to fail them all but please point out where I ere.Slatersteven (talk) 22:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Explanations have been provided below. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I understand it (do correct me if I'm am wrong) to be notable a film should (but does not need to be) Widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics (it seems to fail this). to have recived a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking (it again seems to fail this one). Has the film been selected for preservation in a national archive (I do not beleive it is)? I also do not bleive that it is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program (but please correct me if I am wrong). So it fails 4 or the 5 cirteria for notability (and I am being geneous with the other). How therfore can it be notable if it fails to meet this many indicators of notability?Slatersteven (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question I think the important phrase there is "nationally known critics". If there are full length reviews by nationally known critics other than Variety, they should be included in the article and I would revise my deletion nom. As the article is written this film doesn't meet a single one of the standards listed at WP:MOVIE. So if we don't delete at the very least we should bring it up to notability guidelines.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question what was this films release schedual? Has it been wdiely distributed?Slatersteven (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, then Keep, but needs to be rewritten to establish notability. It's not neutrality that's at issue as much as notability. For example as it reads the article does not include full-length reviews from "two or more nationally known reviewers" and it doesn't establish any type of wide release which are supposed to be criteria. If the movie had those things (which I'm not convinced of) then they need to be included.
    Also accuracy is in question because there are inconsistencies. Variety review is the most notable review, but the remainder of "Reception" section is wierd: "During the film's earlier festival run it received generally positive reviews." But then the reviews listed as having occurred during the "earlier festival run" include 3 reviews that it looks like were written during the theatrical run according to the cites. Then it says the film got "generally positive reviews" during its festival run "with certain notable exceptions." However, no exceptions are provided. So on second thought maybe there is some COI going on here? I think it needs fresh editors if we're keeping.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point -- the reception section was subject to a good amount of back-and-forth editing as the sockpuppets tried to put the film in the best possible light, and other editors, including myself, tried to keep the section as accurate and neutral as possible. This is almost certainly the cause of the discontinuities that you point out. I agree that fresh editors with fresh eyes would be a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already removed the alterations to the article made by the sockpuppets, who downplayed the mixed Variety review in favor of reviews from less prestigious outlets. I'd welcome additional eyes on the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am all for an admin closing out this nomination with a Keep and I will then remove the badge from the page so we can collectively attempt to improve articles accuracy.¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Before that happens, would you mind if a checkuser takes a look at you? The timeline of events I mentioned above, and the newness of your accounts certainly looks ... convenient, let's say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, my understanding is that because another editor has voted to delete, you cannot withdraw this nomination. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK as we have two reviews from at least two well known sources I see no reason not to keep this, change my vote to keep.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I think this can be closed per WP:SNOW -- the nominator has effectively withdrawn the nomination, and the only "delete" !vote has changed to "keep." Seems like a good candidate for a non-admin closure, if someone not involved is willing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yuuki Kuromitsu[edit]

    Yuuki Kuromitsu (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. Unsourced biography going on 5 years now, despite the tag only being added one whole year ago. Unable to locate non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications for this individual. JBsupreme (talk) 20:35, 30 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. NW (Talk) 20:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Last will and testament of Adolf Hitler[edit]

    Last will and testament of Adolf Hitler (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)

    Only two references to the article. WP:NOTABLE is being brought into question. Micro-Cruzer (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Does the site look like a professional or reliable source? Micro-Cruzer (talk) 20:38, 30 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. Bad faith nom by now-blocked sock. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Emily Hagins[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Emily Hagins (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)

    Listed for further debate. The article is about a young producer of an independant film which recieved a minor grant and who spoke at a minor conference. Further notability has not been established and the article continues to fail WP:CREATIVE. A search of websites mentioning the producer, images located on Google, and YouTube clips all appear to be self-promotion with no reliable third-party references Micro-Cruzer (talk) 20:12, 30 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. JForget 02:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Iron Maiden (blues rock band)[edit]

    Iron Maiden (blues rock 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)

    not notable Band seems un-notable. They released one single and then an album 30 years after they split (and from the sounds of the release self released). They only seem notable for two things their name (really a foot not to Iron Maiden and the fact they released a single (thier only one) with the same name as a mick jagger film [Ned Kelly (1970 film)]]. So their notablitly seems to stem from accidental (and in truth unrelated) links to others. Even the record label went bust. There is a dearth of sources. All in all very poor.Slatersteven (talk) 19:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Save.I saw this band in the late 60s in The Marquee in Wardour St they were one of the first doom style bands before it became known as a style, songs of death & dark forces. And a number of the band have joined and left as members of other notable bands Eg Spirit of John Morgan, Zior, Steve Gibbons, Inner City Unit which included Nick Turner of Hawkwind. To delete this article would loss some resources to help in tracing band family trees. Their album was re-released on Audio Archives a label specialising in bands from the period and not self released (as I have a copy). I vote not to delete Jigajig (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Jigajig (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no mention of Doom style in the article they are listed as a blues rock band. Links to other bands does not make this one notable, they have to be notable in thier own right. Two Who is Audio Archives? I have searched for them and cannot find a referance (besides which it was not re-released, it was never released in the first place). Also as far as I can tell only Trevor Thoms played in any of those other bands. As such the only notable element of the band is him, so this (at best) should be merged with his page. Found a referance to Skeels playing in a band called Bum before playing in zior (a Two album wonder). I assume this is the samed band.Slatersteven (talk) 20:14, 2 February 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. JForget 02:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nintendo DSi XL[edit]

    Nintendo DSi XL (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)

    Since the redirect gets reverted, this is up for afd. This article is repetitive of Nintendo DSi, particularly Nintendo DSi#Larger model. Any further information will be mainly sales and reception, which can easily fit. « ₣M₣ » 19:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

    Comment - Game Boy Pocket actually redirects to Game Boy line#Game Boy Pocket. <Jess now removes her pedantic hat> DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 23:55, 30 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 regarding Willard, delete the other two. Jayjg (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dean Willard[edit]

    Dean Willard (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 per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO; no significant coverage online in WP:Reliable sources; online news coverage only extends to passing mentions in local press, candidacy for Congress doesn't of itself make someone notable. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similarly non-notable candidates in the same election, with online news coverage only extending to passing mentions of their candidacy in local press:

    Gregory Hoover (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    David Spring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) MuffledThud (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Dean Willard meets WP:GNG. The Prod notice was put up 7 minutes after I posted the article. And, the AfD notice was posted a mere 15 minutes later. Many of the comments were made before I was even given a chance to complete the article.
    1. "Significant coverage" - there are several reference that give Dean Willard much more than a trivial mention.
    2. "Reliable" - there are secondary sources.
    3. "Sources," - there are multiple sources.
    4. "Independent of the subject" - the sources are newspaper articles and are independent of the subject.
    5. Presumed" - I believe that Dean Willard does have significant coverage in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not specific as to how many articles are required to meet "significant" coverage. On some articles, this had to be three references or more, on others the wiki deletion police/cabal required as many as 50. Please judge the article now that it's much more complete.  kgrr talk 03:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete, G3. Evidence submitted by nom indicates this is a hoax. Blueboy96 19:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Frederico Vega[edit]

    Frederico Vega (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)

    Unref'd bio with one claim of notability. However, a Google search brings back only 8 results, all mirrors/forks of WP. Lugnuts (talk) 18:40, 30 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. I looked over this discussion for days, and there are several good arguments from both sides; but it comes down to whether or not Tommy passes WP:ACADEMIC. The majority of the keep !votes are not anywhere near trying to satisfy this guideline, while the delete !votes showed real reasons to remove this article. However only one criteria from WP:ACADEMIC needs to be met for it to pass the guideline, and therefore per [20], he passes criteria 7, and therefore the few keeps that mentioned this make the consensus. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 19:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tommy Möller[edit]

    Tommy Möller (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 BLP of a professor. Doesn't meet the multiple, non-trivial requirement for sources. The NYT "source" only mentions a quote from him on some issue. Another source is his own book, and the last source is simply his university profile. UnitAnode 18:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep. Full professor (this the the meaning of "professor" in Swedish terminology) of political science at Stockholm University and active participant in Swedish political debate, clearly fulfills WP:ACADEMIC. The fact that this article has been nominated despite the fact that this has been pointed out on the discussion page seems to be related to the BLP out-of-process mass deletions a couple of days ago, of which this article was a part. Tomas e (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not every "full professor" merits a WP article. UnitAnode 19:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And I just reviewed ACADEMIC again, and he doesn't fulfill even one of the requirements. UnitAnode4 19:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I however see little evidence that you have reviewed Prof. Möller's credentials. There is no higher "grade" of academic researcher than full professor in the Swedish university system, so in essence it looks like you (and OpenFuture below) say that it is not possible to achieve notability through any Swedish academic position. Membership of the Royal Academies is a bit more selective than "just" being a full professor (but they exist outside the university system itself), but there is no academy that is really focussed on political science or most other social sciences. So I would just have to assume that the vast majority of articles in Category:Swedish scientists will be AfD'd. Or is is it only the living ones that are non-notable under current standards? Tomas e (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you honestly claiming that there are no department heads in Swedish universities? They don't have any form of hierarchy? That may well be true, but even if it is, it's not Wikipedia's problem. UnitAnode 03:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Swedish universities do have both department heads and named chairs. Tommy Möller is neither. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's interesting to see scientific journals being branded "trivial" in discussions on notabilities of academics. Tomas e (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I called his coverage by these sources "trivial", and it is -- and I think you know it is. UnitAnode 03:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you have to have a "named chair" or a "distinguished professor" title, and Tommy Möller doesn't. Having a chair is not enough according to WP:ACADEMIC. If those requirements are supposed to include all chairs, this needs to be clarified, because that's not what it says now. --OpenFuture (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In that discussion it seemed that your opinion on notability was obviously that you had heard of him rather than anything in WP:ACADEMIC. Just out of curiosity, how many scientists have you heard of, and should we delete all the rest? Tomas e (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep he has written textbooks used at major universities, , passes points 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of WP:ACADEMIC#Criteria. TomCat4680 (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How does he pass these criteria? I can't find any source that he passes any of these criteria. Specifically you mention criteria 5 which, according to the discussions here it is by now completely evident that he do *not* pass. Could any of the people here that wants to keep the article just for once actually argue for how he passes any of these criteria, and come with sources, and maybe even add that information on his Wikipedia article, so that it would be evident by reading his article that he indeed is notable? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I already answered that, his research was so good they decided to let him write textbooks which are used at major universities, how many professors can say that? TomCat4680 (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Quite a lot, since it's not mentioned which these "major universities" are. Professors quite often write their own textbooks, which automatically gives you one "major university". 2. Even if his textbooks are used at major universities, that does not mean he fulfills ANY of the above criteria. So no, you haven't answered that. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    His books prove he passes point #4 which states The person's academic work has made a significant impact in the area of higher education, affecting a substantial number of academic institutions. Obviously the specific book names and schools that use them should be added, however. TomCat4680 (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How does the fact that he has written a whole bunch of books prove he has had a significant impact? I'm getting really tired of asking the question "how" all the time. It's getting pretty darn obvious nobody can answer. You are not notable because you are a professor. You are not notable because you written books. If you where, these things would be listed as criteria for notability, and they are not. I also note that don't answer how he fulfills 1, 3, 5 and 7, which you claimed he fulfilled. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If you're tired of asking, why don't you stop asking? You made your point tenfold, now move on with your life. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I continue asking, because I get no answers, but people continue to make the claim. There is no reason to be bitter just because you were wrong. And learn to indent. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ¨¨ victor falk 06:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    arbitrary break[edit]

    Again: *How* does he pass the requirements? I can judge them and they don't support the claims that he passes the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So you speak Swedish? If so, why don't you translate the bibliography section? TomCat4680 (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The books are in Swedish and have Swedish titles, so I'm not sure what there is to translate. Also, the discussion here is about his notability. There has been a lot of discussion, sometimes even really heated about the subject, yet nobody has been able to come up with any support for his notability. I think the article should be deleted. Why would I work on it? My question is instead: Why don't you add to his article in a way that shows that he is notable? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If you don't want to expand articles why did you even join Wiki? If you just want to argue there's dozens of other sites for that purpose. TomCat4680 (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Learn to indent, it's getting really annoying. 2. I want to expand articles, but I have no desire to expand things that should be deleted, and I can't find anything to expand this article with in the first place. 3. What good arguments for notability that was. Not. Can we keep to the topic? If you have sources showing his notability, add them. I have looked, I can find *none*. I can not find *anything* that makes him fulfill WP:ACADEMIC. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I already added several of his books. Obviously it proves he's an expert in his field. That's why the media constantly asks him to contribute to discussions on the topic, they value his opinion and think he adds a lot to the programs/articles, etc. TomCat4680 (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Being an "Expert" is not listed as something that fulfills notability in WP:ACADEMIC, clearly we are now finally moving towards consensus that he doesn't fulfill those criteria, which is about time. Then is the question if he fulfills notability in some other way. Apparently you think being an "expert" is enough. I'm not an expert (hehe) on notability guidelines, and couldn't find anything conclusive on that subject. Of his publications (they are not all books in any general meaning, many are research publications) few are available for purchase as of today. They are indeed published by the type of published that publish course literature, but that doesn't mean they are used as course literature by any one except Tommy Möller himself. They *may* be, but then please provide sources for this. I can't find any. I can only find one reference to one of his books being used at any notable university outside Stockholm, and that's the university in Uppsala, which is a major university by Swedish standards. I don't know if it's major by international standards. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as a FTR - it is considered a major university by international standards with world rankings of around #75 in the most important university rankings (but that doesn't automatically mean that all authors of textbooks used there are notable people. I teach at UU, and I sometimes use textbooks whose authors are definitely not notable.) --bonadea contributions talk 12:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    We're probably having trouble finding sources because he's Swedish. If he were from an English speaking country we'd probably have more hits on the English language search engine we're using. For example I searched for him on Google News but the only thing that came close was an NHL player with a similar name. TomCat4680 (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No, you have trouble finding sources because there are none. I've looked for them too, remember? --OpenFuture (talk) 10:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no English sources, but there's probably tons of Swedish ones. This article belongs in the Swedish Wiki. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    So, you now agree it should be deleted? This discussion is about the English article, not the Swedish one, which already exists. (And no, there are no tons of Swedish sources either). --OpenFuture (talk) 11:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    I don't really care, but at least I tried to expand the article. Just stop arguing with me. TomCat4680 (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I also tried to expand the article. Again: I can't find anything to expand with. I don't understand why this seems to raise such an intense debate. And when you claim things that are obviously wrong, you'll have to accept that I correct you, and that I ask for support of claims of notability. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay I accept it. Why do you insist on beating a dead horse? I already admitted I was wrong. Don't you have anything better to do? TomCat4680 (talk) 11:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Who is arguing? All I did was ask you for references supporting your claim of notability. When you seemed to back down I asked if you conceded that the article should be deleted, and then you told me to stop arguing. It was a question. Geeez. What is it with Tommy Möller that makes people so stingy? It's it the heave-metal umlaut? What? :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not changing my keep. I think he meets the guideline still. TomCat4680 (talk) 12:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, fine. Can you then please explain how he meets the guidelines? Because in your attempts so far you have failed to do so. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    I went through and added several books. I stopped at page 4 of the Google Books search but the rest should be added (and all of their titles translated if anyone here speaks Swedish). TomCat4680 (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    arbitrary break[edit]

    Notability is definitively independent of language and notability. He clearly does not meet WP:ACADEMIC in any language. He does indeed get quoted in articles, at least in SvD and Expressen. He is clearly on these newspapers lists of people to call if you want to have a name to quote in the article. I asked there if that's enough to be called "notable", but no-one answered. He also have had several debate articles in Dagens Nyheter, is that notable? --OpenFuture (talk) 12:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes being included in the country's largest newspaper Dagens Nyheter (basically the Swedish USA Today) is notable. TomCat4680 (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "Included"? You mean having an article on the debate-page of DN? Is that really notable? We better start pages about Annika Taesler, Björn Johnson, Christian Clausen, Lena Ag and Peje Emilsson. And that's just the last week or two, and I ignored those articles signed by three or more people. :) No, maybe you meant something else. Are there any other set of rules for notability except WP:Academic? I'm really trying to find some reason to view this guy as notable so we can end this silly discussion, you need to help me here. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    'A prophet is not without honour except in his own country', although characterising this subject as a prophet may be hyperbolic. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    So, your bluff is called by an actual Swedish speaker, and that's what you come up with?!? UnitAnode 04:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    arbitrary break[edit]

    • Ref 1 is Möller's university profile. It shows that he works at Stockholm University (so do I, what about it?) and is a full professor.
    • Ref 2 is an article about Carl Bildt (Bildt is notable, yes!) which proves (again) that Möller is "a professor of political science at Stockholm University". He's quoted, in passing, as having made a brief comment about Bildt.
    • Ref 3: Parts of a book by Möller are read for a not-high-level course in political science at a small college (Jönköping). Yes, the "University Foundation" stuff is a bit misleading. Colleges like to introduce a whiff of universityhood in their self-description, of course. But compare the Swedish Jönköping page.
    • Ref 4. Parts of another book are read for a fairly modest course at a bona fide major university (Uppsala); in the context, this is something of a find.
    • Ref 5 is the entry in LIBRIS, the Swedish national library database, for Möller's dissertation from 1986. Offering this as a "reference" is embarrassing. You're probably getting tired of me, but my dissertation is in there too, together with every extant Swedish dissertation since... oh, the reign of Gustav Vasa, probably.
    • Ref 6: bona fide reference to Tommy Möller being interviewed on Dagens Eko. This is pretty good!
    • Ref 7: Möller is quoted on the major SVT news Rapport's homepage. That could mean that he had also appeared on Rapport itself. But the trouble with both 6 and 7 is that there is only one comment (in passing) from each of Dagens Eko and Rapport offered in evidence of the large claim that Möller has "acted as political commentator in various Swedish media". This would be a notability claim with some meat to it, if the article offered any evidence (such as a claim from a reputable secondary source) that Möller has been commenting at all frequently, but it doesn't. And I don't believe he has, either. My own anecdotal experience isn't relevant here, of course, but I'll just mention that as a Swedish resident, I listen to/watch Dagens Eko and Rapport pretty much every day, and I haven't seen or heard Tommy Möller above two or three times altogether.
    • Ref 8, Sveriges Radios election night coverage in 2006. Möller is not part of the major "valvaka", which is covered by the major channel P1; instead, he's mentioned with reference to local coverage on P4. No offense, but that's a whole different kettle of fish, and the conclusion drawn from it in the article, while formally correct, is highly misleading.
    • Ref 9: Möller gave the introductory speech at a two-hour seminar about the role of lobbyism in a democracy. Notable?
    • Ref 10: Möller took part in a 90-minute seminar about political leadership. Neither of the two seminars at 9 and 10 appear to have been covered by any media.
    • Ref 11: Möller's university profile (again). Not what I'd call a homepage, but it has a list of his publications—an impressive list, at least number-wise. I don't want to demean this academic productivity in any way, but, well, it is academic. Not the kind of books that have an impact on public debate.
    How are those links "sources", anyway? Few of them are actually used for the article.

    I cover the "used as textbooks at major universities" claim above; it turns out to mean part of a book, at one course, at one major university (plus another one at a modest college). As for the "department head or named chair" business in WP:ACADEMIC, however, that's different, and speaks, if anything, in favor of Möller's possible notability. Those concepts are sort of irrelevant to it. Full professors generally take turns to act as department head, which is an administrative position, and not a coveted one. [/bishonen remembers with a shiver the time she was inveigled into acting as head of her department for a couple of years. Brrr.] Research positions are what people want, and highly active researchers, as Möller clearly is, may well manage to avoid the headship altogether. Named chairs, on the other hand, are very rare, so, for Swedish academics, one of those shouldn't be required for notability.

    Can notability be acquired by professors at all, then? Not qua professors, IMO. Not by professor-ing away. But, say, by being in a lot of high-profile conflicts. (I have no reason whatever to suppose Möller is that.) Or by being given a professorship because they were already notable on the (in this case) political arena. A good example of a notable full professor is Leif G.W. Persson. Now Persson really is known for frequently commenting on stuff in the media, as well as for various other things.

    To recapitulate: Möller is a very respectable and, as appears from the list of his publications, very diligent professor of Political Science. I'm not at all surprised that Google Scholar gets lots of hits for him. But that's the academic publishing track; it's only tenuously related to public debate in Sweden. Möller is not...how shall I put this...not a well-known political commentator. Not often in the media. He's by no means someone in the public eye, or generally quoted. (Though Thomas Möller, formerly head of Swedish Hell's Angels, is; be careful you don't get the two mixed up!) OpenFuture makes a good point about the debate-page of Dagens Nyheter; that's not a...uh... not a hotspot nowadays. The page has increasingly become the reserve of politicians and academics; it was at one time widely read, but, well, not so much now. It's putting it politely to state that being published there doesn't confer or imply notabilty.

    I agree with Hegvald that the article seems to have been produced back-to-front. It's unbalanced; it's very short; conclusions drawn from its "sources" are consistently inflated. It would have been a lot more interesting, at least, (though still hardly notable) to focus on what is unusual about Möller. On what makes viewers swallow their coffee the wrong way when he makes an appearance on Rapport. And that is his, for professors of Political Science, unusual conservatism, readily apparent (at least to a Swede) from his book titles. And I've saved the best for a note to end on: what is absolutely freakishly rare for an academic in Möller's position is his support of the Monarchy, and the comments he has made in that context. That's mentioned in the article, but I'm not sure you guys see the significance. A bit more emphasis on it would turn this article into a perpetual bitter edit war, wouldn't that be fun? But I don't think it makes him notable, for all that. Bishonen | talk 11:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC). Leif[reply]

    Poor sourcing and sources misapplied - often to prevent deletion (hint hint) does not equate that a subject lacks notability. Only that the article requires clean-up which remains not a reason to delete. Improving article context, structure, spelling out notability, improving sourcing, these are all considered regular editing. We do this every day on thousands of articles. A case can be made in some cases that it's better to start over but frankly even that is not a deletion but an overhaul. -- Banjeboi 11:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is true. But the problem here is that the poor sourcing is simply an effect of lack of sources. Let me remind you again: I *have* been looking. It said that his books was used as textbooks on many major universities. The truth is I could find that it was used on two minor courses in Uppsala, and one other minor university. It's not poorly sourced because nobody has bothered, or just slapped bad sources i there to make it looked sourced. It's poorly sourced, because there are no sources. And to me, that indicates that he probably isn't notable.
    Let's recap:
    • He does clearly not fulfill WP:ACADEMIC, he has had no significant impact, and does not have a named chair, etc. Possibly the amount of references can be notable, I don't know, somebody needs to find comparisons with other people who are deemed notable.
    • Appearing on the debate page of Dagens Nyheter is not notable in an international perspective.
    • Getting called up to quote on random events in politics doesn't seem notable to me. Everyone else has been silent on the issue.
    • Being one expert on an election program doesn't seem notable to me, further discussion on that could be helpful.
    • He is possibly notable by being the only Swedish political sciences professor who is a monarchist. But that seems like a longshot.
    Clearly what we need to concentrate on here is if we can find a reason to say that he is notable on the basis of him being referenced, called to quote things, or being a conservative. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Likely he meets GNG whether a specific guideline is also met. Google News also yeilds an impressive amount of hits that will have to be sorted to suss which are relevant to this article and likely this article will require those willing to translate numerous sources as well. -- Banjeboi 12:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of those hits are for another Tommy Möller. 'Professor "Tommy Möller"' yields 43 hits, which is less than two political scientists without Wikipedia pages who's blogs I read: Fredrik Segerfeldt (75) and Andreas Bergh (258) (neither are professors). Heck, *I* have been quoted by the New York times, and get three hits. :) Maybe he does meet GNG, but there has been a notable lack of arguments for that. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    99 news ghits, without the references to coach Tommy Moller-Nielsen. Many sources don't he's a professor, or use terms like statsvetenskapproffessor. Goodle does not understand compoundwordmaking.walk victor falk talk 11:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    • First, thanks for your work on this matter. In your view, how does using these evaluations conform (or not conform) with our policy on original research? It sounds as if they may be primary documents, and that some level of synthesis might be necessary in order to use them well. What are your thoughts about this? UnitAnode 14:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • My point is that they need some understanding of the context where the evaluations were made and comparison with a range of other sources to be "used well", but I don't see how synthesis ("a synthesis of published material to advance a new position") would need to come into it at all. For writing about Möller's work, they would be secondary sources. The only way they would be primary sources would be if someone would want to make a study of the experts who wrote these evaluations and their views of what type of competence or profile a professor of political science needs to have (or something like that). The primary sources for the subject of Tommy Möller would be Möller's own writings. --Hegvald (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can certainly sympathize with your double reaction to using sakkunnigutlåtanden for a bio, Hegvald, from "How useful" to some alarm. I'm kind of appalled by the idea myself. Those evaluations are... well... I don't know how to put it, but they're kind of special (not in a good way). I know I couldn't muster enough tact to use them for anything. Bishonen | talk 17:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    arbitrary break[edit]

    "a frequent political commentator in Swedish media.[3]" walk victor falk talk 19:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? This isn't a vote, so without a contribution to the discussion by way of rationale, you will probably be ignored.--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability. --NERIUM (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What about it?--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The article has notability. --NERIUM (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, the article has been improved since nomination - I'll strike my comment about the frivolousness of nomination - the nomination was probably completely legitimate then. But the fact that it has been improved and is now sourced and makes (reasonable) claims to notability might then be a motivation for withdrawing the nomination all together? ·Maunus·ƛ· 13:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's obviously up to the person who nominated the article for deletion, but I still don't agree there has been any convincing arguments for Tommy Möllers notability, so I think withdrawing it before we have a decision is a bad idea, as there is a high risk the discussion appears again. We'd better get a AfD decision from somebody with more experience of notability discussions. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    These references [31](preprint of article later published in "Party Politics, Vol. 9, No. 3, 369-390 (2003)") [32][33][34] [][35][36] [37] show that Möller is cited in international contexts (English, Norwegian, Czech and Chinese)when dealing with topics of swedish politics. This book[38] (p. 69) by the swedish research council of political sciences states that "Although the work at Stockholm trails that of Göteborg in the field of electoral studies, Tommy Möller’s work on Swedish elections and political parties, some of it co-authored or co-edited with Sören Holmberg at Göteborg, has been recognized both by academic peers and the public. Möller has also been a frequent commentator on Swedish politics on national television." ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The last one is a pretty good source. With the historical chapter (which could undoubtedly be fleshed out from other sources), it would form a good basis for an article on Political science in Sweden. --Hegvald (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That piece of information has obviously been included in order to assert notability when challenged. Using, the fact that it is irrelevant to the article to argue that it should be deleted is putting a catch 22 on those who would try to save it. As I have already said above the fact that his book is used in a a course is not the interesting part - the fact that it has been published in six editions is. And the fact that his works in swedish are referenced in international contexts (english, norwqegian, czech and chinese), and that the swedish ministry of science explicitly states that he has had a broad impact in science and as a political commentator.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, yeah, that piece kinda has been inserted for that reason. Although originally it claimed that his textbooks (plural) was used at several major universities. That turned out to be yet another incorrect claim in the effort to assert notability for Möller. When checked, it turns out that his books are used in one or two courses at one major university and one course at a minor one. And that was all I could find. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't speak for Bishonen, but you may be reading too much into what I wrote. Basically I agree with what Fut.Perf. said above: the article is an embarrassment (for Wikipedia and the subject, but the latter is a far worse problem). But I also think that the sources could be used to write about Möller. (Maunus has also presented an additional source of some value.) But because these sources are difficult to use (one needs to tread carefully in order not to overrepresent their bias in the article), I would just prefer to see someone doing it in a way that won't be an even worse embarrassment before the page gets re-introduced as an actual article. --Hegvald (talk) 07:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that I have since presented sources in English and three other languages beside swerdish - I don't think that should be a problem.·Maunus·ƛ·
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Cathy Greene[edit]

    Cathy Greene (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 BLP of an actress. The only sources provided offer only trivial mentions of her, which does not satisfy our notability requirements. If such sources can not be found, then the article should be deleted. UnitAnode 18:30, 30 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) 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Be with You (2009 film)[edit]

    Be with You (2009 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)

    Apparently not scheduled to go into production until 2011,and would thus violate WP:CRYSTAL (not my field, but I came across it in following up speedies) DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 30 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) 00:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Eric Wake[edit]

    Eric Wake (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)

    Academic of unclear notability, tagged as such since November 2009. I searched Google/Google News/Google Books/Google Scholar in the hope of finding sources but this did not turn up anything that made a convincing case for notability. The only incoming links are housekeeping ones. Michig (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was speedy delete, G11, with a generous sprinkling of salt. Per alerts from other users, this article is indeed word-for-word the same as Sanook.com, and is therefore a blatant attempt to evade the salting of that article. Author blocked as a spam-only account. Blueboy96 18:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sanook[edit]

    Sanook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Previously declined A7. While notability is asserted, a search doesn't reveal enough non-trivial coverage in my mind to satisfy WP:WEB. Blueboy96 18:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete the creator has created the 4-time deleted Sanook.com (same content), which is now create protected. Connormah (talk | contribs) 18:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Should have been speedied, per being a substantial recreation of deleted content. UnitAnode 18:50, 30 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) 00:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Prerna Suri[edit]

    Prerna Suri (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 as it fails WP:Bio. The references only support the fact that she is a journalist, that she has a webpage, and that she actually reported. There is no significant published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. --Bejnar (talk) 18:14, 30 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) 00:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    K.I.D.D.[edit]

    K.I.D.D. (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 has produced some songs for B.G. (who is a notable MC) and it seems a few other people, but I'm not finding any discussion in reliable secondary sources when I search on variations of his name. Some hits from blogs (including an interview), but no mention in popular hip-hop magazines like XXL and The Source, and certainly none in more general interest secondary sources. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject suggests K.I.D.D. is not notable enough to pass the general notability guideline. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    BTP, the source have practically no online presence, and xxl keep print-exclusive content. but really the only ppl who write about producers who aren't superstars are wax poetics and the old Scratch anyhow, and they did not pay attention to nola in this period iirc. This guy wrote and produced the music for a billboard #21 record, so does WP:MUSIC apply anymore or not? Why should I even try to hunt down sources when no one has a clue what is going on? Just pull BLPs by diktat and be done with this chaotic hypocrisy and time-wasting imo. 86.44.33.121 (talk) 00:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    you'll remember me from kool herc btw. 86.44.33.121 (talk) 00:52, 2 February 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) 21:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    OSScamp[edit]

    OSScamp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No independent, reliable third-party sources cited, see Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Note that the one third-party source is by an author with the same name as the principal editor here, so there are WP:COI issues too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Author's Note: Why the page should not be deleted

    Kinshuk Sunil (talk) 11:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at the page history and saw that the specific text was added by Yadu Rajiv and the complete text included a reference to him as well. Before adding my note on this page, I re-edited the document and removed all disputable text including this claim of popularity. I have also added some new references, which might be more notable than the current ones. The page in the introduction to the camps section says that Vineet and Sonali spearheaded the community. They also started the company OSSCube, which is also mentioned in the Page. I work for OSSCube as well, taking care of their community initiatives. Please do not misunderstand this relationship as a vested interest by the company in the community, since I am equally involved with other communities in the country as well. I am only apalled that other companies dont show up in the news results. I am now reading the WP:COI and will make changes accordingly. Kinshuk Sunil (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 18:04, 30 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 and move. JForget 02:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Evo Championship Series[edit]

    Evo Championship Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Unencyclopedic article that reads more like a rant against the subject rather than providing any actual useful information. A video game tournament by this name exists, but notability is uncertain. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 18:01, 30 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) 00:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Weston and Worle News[edit]

    Weston and Worle News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This is a stub article about a free local newspaper with a small circulation, which is no longer published. I don't believe it would have met general notability guidelines when it was in print, and I certainly don't think it is notable now that it has been out of print for 12 months. Simple Bob (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As the creator of this article I would not object to its deletion.— Rod talk 17:21, 30 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. Valid arguments are presented for both keeping and deleting the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ruth Abbey[edit]

    Ruth Abbey (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. Contested prod. This article was created one year ago and has only primary sources to show for it. JBsupreme (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Her books have indeed been reviewed in the five journals I cited above (and I believe more, these were just the ones I noticed on the first search page). Anyone with access to JSTOR or similar databases can view the reviews, which like all academic reviews summarize her work and critique it. They are actually exactly the kind of thing we need to write an article about an academic, and indeed an academic's work might be quite important but covered primarily or even solely in specialized journals that are not so easy to access. I'm confused as to how multiple reviews in peer-reviewed journals does not qualify as "clear cut third party coverage." You can't read them just by doing a google search, but that obviously does not matter. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying Abductive (not surprising for a one word comment). Is your point that one of her books is an edited volume? The other two are not, it seems, and there are multiple reviews for both. Can you clarify what you are getting at? --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two are edited. The one she wrote on her advisor Taylor has the least interest. Writing a book on one's own advisor doesn't move me to want to keep this article. Let me be blunt; this is an associate prof. No sources have been provided saying that she is important. There are at least 2 million professors in the world, and they all do stuff. Abductive (reasoning) 01:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about my personal opinion. What I am saying is that every author writes books, and WP:AUTHOR says

    Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

    1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
    2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
    3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
    4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.
    5. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics) for guidelines on academics
    and I say she fails all these points. Nowhere is she regarded as important. She did not originate a significant theory. She is not widely cited; her citation record is quite low. She did not create a well-known work. Her work is not a significant monument. She fails WP:PROF. Abductive (reasoning) 01:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) What two do you think are edited? Neither Nietzsche’s Middle Period nor Charles Taylor (the one from 2000) are edited. The Nietzsche book has multiple reviews in journals (and is probably in a sense the book on that period of Nietzsche's oeuvre), as does the book on Taylor. I'll take your word that Taylor was her adviser (didn't notice that), but that hardly matters since he's obviously a very significant modern philosopher (hence our article on him and indeed on his books Sources of the Self and A Secular Age) and since the book she wrote was basically well received. I'm not sure what makes you decide that it has the "least interest" or somehow doesn't matter just because you think it doesn't, but in any case she did write another unedited book as well. So you're simply wrong on the facts, but you also are completely ignoring the fact that there are multiple reviews of her books which establish that she has done well-regarded work within the field of philosophy. I don't think you're articulating a policy-based rationale for why Abbey does not warrant an article, and I know that the sentence "there are at least 2 million professors in the world, and they all do stuff" is not even close to an argument for deletion (plus the premise is not true—I personally know a number of professors who don't "do stuff"!).
    As to your copy-paste of WP:AUTHOR, what actually matters here in terms of guidelines is the first criteria of WP:PROF: "The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." You'd have to actually look at some of the reviews in the journals I list out above, but specialized academic journals are indeed the place where it's generally determined whether or not one has made a "significant impact in their scholarly discipline." It's fine if you don't have access to those journals, but don't blithely claim "nowhere is she regarded as important" if you have not looked her up in the journals in which she publishes and in which her books are reviewed. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here, the Amazon listing shows her as editor. The other book is listed as author, my bad.
    As for the first criteria of WP:PROF. I refuse to accept that Abbey is a leader in her scholarly discipline, unless you can show me a "Department of Charles Taylor Studies" or even a "Journal of Charles Taylor Studies". She has not made significant impact in her scholarly disciplines; as the article says, her interests are "political theory, history of political thought and feminist political thought," not Taylor. The low number of citations is evidence of this lack of impact. Abductive (reasoning) 05:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your arguments are trending into the absurd, and frankly I'm not sure you understand how academia works. Forget about "Department of Charles Taylor Studies," there is not even a "Department of Hegel Studies," or "Department of Abraham Lincoln Studies," or a "Department of Colonial American History Studies." Academic departments are generally quite broad, they never focus on individual people or subfields. Journals are more specialized, but "Journal of Charles Taylor Studies" is not something you are going to see. That doesn't mean those topic are not important. Scholars of necessity specialize, and no one would ever criticize another scholar for being a specialist in a certain area, or chide them because there was no journal or department named after their research interests. If their work is respected, they would be considered a leader in their sub-field or specialized area. Furthermore, you seem to be willfully ignoring that Abbey wrote a book about Nietzsche who, you must know, is very much not the same person/thinker that Charles Taylor is. He's also kind of a big deal in the history of philosophy, and based on chronology it seems pretty much impossible that he mentored Abbey.
    I'm going to leave off replying now because the statement "I refuse to accept that Abbey is a leader in her scholarly discipline [course that's not what WP:PROF says, but whatever], unless you can show me a "Department of Charles Taylor Studies..." is just a bit too ridiculous for me, and it's obvious you are not interested in listening to counterarguments, thus you're making what Nietzsche famously called "A very popular error -- having the courage of your convictions. Rather, it is a matter of having the courage for an attack upon one's convictions!" --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I know there is not a Dept of Hegel Studies etc, and you know that. My statement was meant to be absurd, and you know that. My argument itself is not absurd. You are the one engaging in truth-obscuring rhetoric in an attempt to save an article on an associate prof.
    My point is that every professor is a narrow expert on a particular something. WP:PROF says one has to be well above average. This person is not, based on lack of citations, and on being an associate professor. Abductive (reasoning) 18:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In particular I have checked Abductive's assertion that " It's harder to find a professor without a named chair at Notre Dame. ". The English Department, one of his examples, has exact 6 chairs, and even as a non-specialist, I recognize some of them, & I think it is fair to say what the University does when it says that they are so designated "In recognition of their world-renowned scholarship and excellent teaching,"[49]. It's harder only in a very technical sense to find those without a named chair, because they are not listed separately but I went through the entire list, and I find there are 12 full professors without named chairs. So his guess is simply wrong--perhaps he should have counted. More to the immediate point, in the Department of Political Science there are 9 endowed and 11 non-endowed full professors; there are 4 endowed and 10 non-endowed Associate Professors. So it seems that even by standards of an absolutely top quality university, she is one of their more distinguished associate professors. We have had some discussion whether Associate professors in major research universities would generally be notable: the opinions are divided, & at present there is not consensus for that in general. (Personally, I have sometimes !voted delete and sometimes keep for associate Professors). But certainly I think the top rank of them, as here, probably would all be notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that she is one the only associate professor who has a named chair that I found, but I still don't see it as sufficient. As for the named chair thing, I should have said that the proportion of named chairs at ND is unusually high, high enough that one cannot apply it towards notability. Abductive (reasoning) 04:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    DGG makes excellent points above, but I'd just like to throw in a meta-comment here about professors/scholars and notability. More so than most biographies of living persons (which I generally think we should restrict), in an ideal Wikipedia bios on scholars would be extremely useful. Any notable professor has had their work reviewed (often extensively) by other scholars. Their BLPs (while giving basic info) should function as a place to describe in detail the work they have done and the evaluations of it. We will generally have plenty of (specialized) sources to do this, and these kind of descriptions can usually not be put in more general articles (e.g. we can't talk about every book on Nietzsche in great detail in our main bio of him or indeed in sub articles). For example there are many hundreds of important scholars of the history of Slavery in the United States—it's one of the richest fields of historical inquiry on the planet. Serious students of the subject (either in an "amateur" DIY fashion or at a university) would be well-served by biographies of scholars who made contributions to the field, bios which would discuss not the person so much but rather their work and how it fits in with the overall scholarship. Indeed if this was done properly such a resource would be useful even to senior scholars, as it's not always easy to keep track of who said and wrote what, the other work they did, and how it's been evaluated. Biographical articles on people who have made important (if specialized) intellectual contributions are among the most valuable we can have in an encyclopedia. Probably I should be saying this somewhere else, but it popped out here I guess. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To me, this sounds like directory-thinking. There is no way that Wikipedia can create an accurate directory of all the professors in the world, or even all the full professors. Page views and other evidence suggests that nobody cares about professors, unless they hit the popular press. Serious scholars would never, ever trust Wikipedia to tell them anything about an obscure topic. The professors I know spend inordinate amounts of time trying to figure out who is important in their field, who is up-and-coming, and who never amounted to anything. Abductive (reasoning) 04:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what "directory-thinking" is, but I'm not talking about creating a directory, I'm saying having a lot of articles that describe the work notable scholars have done would be useful. I don't care that you think that "nobody cares about professors" based on "page views"—summarizing someone's scholarship is a good task for an encyclopedia, and if you don't think so then you are simply wrong. Professors definitely know about everyone within their area of specialization, but a professor who studies slavery in colonial South Carolina does not know everything about scholars who work primarily on California while it was controlled by the Spanish, or about the people who study medieval prisons in Italy. Our goal should be to make Wikipedia the kind of source that anyone would turn to (as a first stop) for subjects about which they are not an expert, or which are just outside their expertise. This is not even the place to discuss this, but I'm just saying more articles on notable scholars that discuss their work would be a good thing, and you're not going to dissuade me from that view. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I very much agree on "discuss their work". Abductive (reasoning) 07:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    for a change, Abductive and I agree on something! We need to do this much more than we have been doing. We've been so pressed for time we have been including the bare facts, and not the actually important content. We need to take existing article,s, and add to their depth. Assuming anyone has cited their published work, or reviewed their book, there should be no great difficulty in selecting an appropriate 3rd party RS discussion. That is, there should be no great difficulty for someone who understands the subject--although we are not doing OR,we do need some knowledge to do a suitable synopsis of this sort, and we have very few people to do it. (except in some of the sciences, where it is sometimes done to a variable extent). When it is present in an article, it's likely to be there as a POV statement trying to promote the work, not discuss it, We need to figure out ways to help people do this--for example, if there is a book, will we accept a list of chapters? We also need to recruit more people who can and will do this in their subjects, by accommodating to some degree their idiosyncrasies and not rushing to delete articles about them. . Where Abductive and I continue to differ, is that I think this is not helped by deleting articles on people of modest importance. It's not wrong to screen out the unimportant, but its better to add to the important. Every time we argue at length over whether someone just passes the bar of notability or does not, its time & energy lost from doing something more useful. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Brooke Gunning[edit]

    Brooke Gunning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 17:03, 30 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) 00:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Soulive Tour Dates[edit]

    Soulive Tour Dates (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)

    Just a list. DimaG (talk) 16:56, 30 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. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Siriporn Ampaipong[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Siriporn Ampaipong (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 singer. I've searched Thai English language newspapers website's and only found passing mentions. Mattg82 (talk) 16:51, 30 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. nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 19:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Xbox Live Arcade games[edit]

    List of Xbox Live Arcade games (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)

    Complete list of games sold though an arguably official retail channel, even listing a proxy for the price (MS points). WP:NOTCATALOG, WP:NOPRICES. Pcap ping 16:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (emphasis mine) So, do we have a list of Microsoft certified games? Because this certification appears not that different, except for the marketing filter that excludes anything MS doesn't think will sell well on-line. Pcap ping 18:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was speedy delete by Athaenara (talk · contribs) under WP:CSD#G11 (non-admin closure). Cunard (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    David Petranker[edit]

    David Petranker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article covers a non-notable photographer in a highly promotional manner — this is approaching an advertisement. Also an autobiography: observe that the author is User:Dpetranker. Speedy deleted in October 2006 with similar content; I prodded this version of the article (rationale of "No evidence of notability; clearly an autobiography"), but the author removed the prod. Nyttend (talk) 16:21, 30 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. JForget 02:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Deary Me Records[edit]

    Deary Me Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable local record label. Released 2 7"s by bands that later went on to become notable, otherwise, nothing of interest. Fails WP:CORP. TheJazzDalek (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    He guys....I'm the founder of the record label Deary Me Records. I'm the one who created the article...I leave it up to your discreation whether or not it should be deleted or kept. As mentioned, two of our bands (The Greenhornes and Thee Shams) went on to form more note worthy bands (The Raconteurs and The Buffalo Killers). But for what it is worth the lead singer of the band Travel (Matt Hart) is also the lead siger of Squirtgun. The band Wolverton Brothers have had releases with Sub Pop and Atavistic Records also. It would be nice to keep it from my view point but I understand if it does not fit Wiki's criteria... CincySports (talk) 03:46, 2 February 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 withdrawn/incorrect venue. For directions to list a redirect for deletion, please see here. –Black Falcon (talk) 05:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Shopping malls in Thailand[edit]

    List of Shopping malls in Thailand (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 redirected to List of shopping malls, hypermarkets and department stores in Thailand, but consensus seems to be that that was too much like a trade directory (and there's no precedent for it in anything similar). So I've pruned a lot of that and moved it to List of shopping malls in Thailand (different capitalisation), and this redirect isn't needed any more. Boing! said Zebedee 14:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just re-read this and I realise I didn't explain it very clearly (I note the Speedy Close comment below, and it seems sensible to go to Redirects for discussion, but I'll explain here to keep it all in one place - and can copy over there later).
    What I've effectively done is mess up an attempt to reverse a previous page move. It appears that in the beginning, there was a page called List of Shopping malls in Thailand (with a capital S). Over time that also accumulated dept stores, hypermarkets, etc, and was then moved to List of shopping malls, hypermarkets and department stores in Thailand, turning List of Shopping malls in Thailand into a redirect. That has no real precedent, and the consensus seems to be that the resulting unwieldy list was a mistake, so I removed all the unwanted dept stores etc. But then, which I think was my mistake, I moved List of shopping malls, hypermarkets and department stores in Thailand to List of shopping malls in Thailand (with a small s - I hadn't spotted the big S version at that time), creating another redirect. So now List of Shopping malls in Thailand redirects to List of shopping malls, hypermarkets and department stores in Thailand which in turn redirects to List of shopping malls in Thailand. I *think* that deleting the first two (the two redirect pages) will solve the problem, or maybe just remove the intermediate redirect? Boing! said Zebedee 17:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You didn't mess up the page move. This was a different page with a separate history from the beginning. No real need for deletion (via whatever route), since redirects are cheap; just fix the double redirect. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, yes, thanks - I see it was a separate page all along, and just a double-redirect to sort out. Boing! said Zebedee 12:56, 31 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. The keep side has not been able to successfully refute the statements by the delete voters that the article fails WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. NW (Talk) 18:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Herman Rockefeller[edit]

    Herman Rockefeller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article does not meet the notability requirements outlined in Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts). This is better suited to a Wikinews article. Even if the incident itself were notable (in encyclopedic terms), such notability is not automatically conferred on the victim. See the policy here. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • (Response) The article says next to nothing about his significance as a businessman. In fact it indicates that his disappearance and murder are the source of his "notability". I actually agree with the article in that respect - he is only known after the crime. His work as a businessman does not meet the notability requirements of WP:BIO. Many of the news articles in the Google search provided by Mkativerata relate to the Rockefellers in the US. I can only find 15 Google archive news articles relating to "Herman Rockefeller" between 1990 and 2010 ([54]) and most of those are quotes as a company spokesperson (for example, "Rockefeller says that the balance sheet is sound...") This isn't a strong case for notability. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • (response) It doesn't matter. His missing person status and death makes him notable due to the publicity he has attracted. Madeline McCann was not notable before she was reported missing either. Her newsworthiness makes her notable now. Wallie (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (Response). Why doesn't it matter? If he wasn't notable before the incident, then the incident itself is what needs to be debated. In that case the notability guidelines of criminal acts and (given that this is an article about the individual and not the incident), the notability of the victim are what is important. WP:VICTIM provides the guidelines and, if read objectively, there's no doubt that HR is not notable. In case you don't want to look it up, the notability of a victiom is 1) due to notability before he/she became a victiom; or 2) the victim, as a victim, played a significant role in the incident and the incident has historical significance. Historical significance cannot yet be determined, as it is a recent event. So, my point (which I believe is established in the debate here) is that he was not notable prior to becoming a victim and, as a victim, is not notable under the policy guidelines of WP:VICTIM. I'd be interested in a keep argument proving otherwise, but so far (as at 6 February) I remain completely unconvinced by any of the arguments raised - and I'd be as bold to suggest that any objective analysis of Wikipedia's notability policy would lead to the same conclusion. Wikipeterproject (talk) 11:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTNEWS, WP:ONEVENT. LibStar (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSUSEFUL. LibStar (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need to "compromise" anything. There is no argument here from "many of you". Just one editor is strongly defending the deletion of the article. Let's just wait for the AfD to take its course. WWGB (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    clearly a weak WP:ITSNOTABLE argument. LibStar (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:JUSTAVOTE LibStar (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITSUSEFUL, the number of visits would relate to his high current media presence particularly in Australia, the best test would be 3-6 months time. Wikipedia:RECENT#News_spikes clearly applies here. LibStar (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (Response): WP:INTERESTING states "personal interest...is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article..." As far as notability is concerned, this needs to be argued against valid WP policy guidelines, otherwise I believe WP:JUSTAVOTE appiles. Wikipeterproject (talk) 16:59, 5 February 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, per WP:NOTDIR. The non redlinked material in this list doesn't appear to qualify for inclusion in List of LGBT community centers, per BelovedFreak. Jayjg (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    List of gay and lesbian resource centres in Ireland[edit]

    List of gay and lesbian resource centres in Ireland (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)

    Wikipedia is not a directory. This is a list of various gay-related organisations in Ireland, very few of the items have articles here, it was (before I converted the links) a mass of external links. No encyclopaedic value. I can't see any other equivalent lists. BelovedFreak 14:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. NW (Talk) 18:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pop culture history, 1920-present[edit]

    Pop culture history, 1920-present (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article is a bunch of random largely unsourced "facts". I can see no plausible direction this article could take that would warrant its inclusion. Nymf talk/contr. 14:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- BelovedFreak 14:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Although it's somewhat interesting and qualifies as informed opinion, it's all original synthesis. Basically, this is one man's personal vision about "six different stages" of Western pop culture history since electronic media (i.e., radio, television, internet) came into common use. An original essay, no matter how good, no matter how well-informed, is barred by Wikipedia. Were it not otherwise, we would have no end to the personal observations of out many editors. Mandsford (talk) 16:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Wikipedia is not TV Tropes. Pretty much a magnet for inflated what links here number and sounds like a summary of any of a number of remember when specials. Nate • (chatter) 21:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I was tempted to nominate this as soon as it was created, but held off and left notes at appropriate WikiProjects to see if it would improve. It didn't. What 'pop culture' is is not defined in the article, it's a hodge-podge of whatever came off the top of the head of the article creator. It's their opinion of what counts as pop culture (in America), lumped into sections according to their own judgement. Fences&Windows 03:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 03:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 03:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I see a talk page that is empty, and no citation needed tags placed anywhere about. Please read WP:BEFORE. AFD is suppose to be the final step, not the first. There are plenty of books out there published on pop culture, or you can tell something is popular by seeing the sales figures. To list what sort of music was popular in an era, you can just take the ten bestselling ones. This could've all been worked out on the talk page, without having to come here. List your complaints and concerns there, and talk it out. Dream Focus 06:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, generally per other delete recommendations above. This article seems to be extremely superficial coverage of the last 90 years of movies, television, music, and certain other cultural aspects, and it is not clear whether more in-depth coverage was even intended to be included. The topics covered in this article are much better covered in other Wikipedia articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per almost everyone above. JBsupreme (talk) 12:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Trivial listcruft at best. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete for all the good reasons already articulated. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -- This is a bad article, but (unless there is something better to merge it with), it ought to be kept and improved. I am surprised at the failure to mention the Beatles, and I am far from sure that musical phases are marked by the ends of decades. However, a general article on this subject certainly is needed. This is from some one who does not like "pop". Peterkingiron (talk) 00:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Chinga Chang Records[edit]

    Chinga Chang Records (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 record label with only one notable release. Article created and mainly edited by the label's owner, DanEmack (talk · contribs). When challenged to find references for claims in the article he instead removed the claims. Now his only edits are to remove the COI, unreferenced, and notability tags. Fails WP:CORP and WP:V. TheJazzDalek (talk) 13:58, 30 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. Assessed consensus was for deletion, in addition there was also the prior Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons chalkboard gags, which is similar in nature. Cirt (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    List of The Simpsons billboard gags[edit]

    List of The Simpsons billboard gags (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 trivia. No coverage in reliable secondary sources, unlike List of The Simpsons couch gags. Theleftorium 13:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep without prejudice to deletion a month down the line when the article is in its final state. Criminy, I created the stub fifteen minutes ago. What's the rush? I'm certainly not going to waste time working on it until this is resolved. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons couch gags. THF (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does that AfD has to do with this? The couch gags are an iconic part of the show, the billboard gags aren't. Theleftorium 14:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • In your opinion. People can read the reasoning in that AFD, and decide for themselves whether the arguments there are applicable here. THF (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree, that makes sense. Why would one gag be less valid than another? Billboard, Bart writing something on chalkboard, and couch gag. I don't see why all three wouldn't be equally valid. Dream Focus 15:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The couch gags have existed since the show was created twenty years ago. The billboard gags were introduced in February 2009. Theleftorium 15:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • What's your point? Its part of a notable show, and its there to stay, not just a one time thing. Dream Focus 15:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • WP:SBST states: "Notability is not predictable: A topic that does not meet the general notability guideline at one time may do so later. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may meet the criteria in the future." Theleftorium 15:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Also, notability is not inherited. -- Scorpion0422 00:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The AFD ends in a week, and by that time the missing information should be filled in. Remember, AFD is for judging whether the article should exist, not judging it in its current stage. The other AFD mentioned stated that the cough gag article had five thousand hits a month. Having articles on Wikipedia people actually want to come here and read, is a good thing. Dream Focus 15:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter if the information is filled in. That's not why I nominated the article for deletion. The so called "billboard gag" concept hasn't received coverage in reliable sources. Theleftorium 15:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some references to two major newspapers, one doing an article on the addition of the billboard to the iconic Simpson's opening, and another commenting on a specific Billboard. Those were the first two links I clicked on after a Google news search revealed them among many others. Dream Focus 15:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The first reference is about the new opening sequence, not the billboard gags. The second is a one sentence mention. That's hardly significant coverage. Theleftorium 15:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How much could you write about one sentence? Its the same amount of coverage the couch gags get. Dream Focus 16:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstood me. What I meant was that two sources are not enough to satisfy the inclusion criteria. Theleftorium 16:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when? List of The Simpsons couch gags only has two references. I've been in plenty of AFDs, and you never need more than two. Dream Focus 16:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the couch gag article only has two secondary sources in it. However, far more sources do exist (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons couch gags), they just haven't been added to the article. Two newspaper articles that barely mention the billboards are not enough. Theleftorium 16:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A google search shows plenty of news coverage of the billboard, even referring to it as iconic. Adding references to the article now. Dream Focus 15:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Time to move this one to The Simpsons wiki. Although Wikipedia was top-heavy on articles about The Simpsons in its early days, even to the point that serious articles would be tainted with moronic references to the classic television show, it isn't 2005 anymore. This is, essentially, a list of jokes. Mandsford (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: This is just as notable as the couch gag list, and editor has provided three secondary sources. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for badgering, but WP:GNG says "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". These three sources contain one-sentence mentions of the billboards. Theleftorium 19:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still waiting for that AFD nomination of the couch gags article (which was all but SNOW kept the last time it was nominated), as you have yet to identify any difference between the two, since it currently has fewer sources of no more moment than the billboard sources. Why are you taking this so personally that you've had to make ten comments on this AFD when the article isn't even six hours old? THF (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said before, the couch gag concept has received significant coverage in reliable sources ([58], for example), the billboard concept hasn't. But it doesn't matter if the couch gags article exists or not. Theleftorium 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your sole example of a difference is that a primary source mentions the couch gag? How does that confer notability? And if it does, do you really doubt that that same primary source won't also document the billboard gag? But more importantly, this isn't a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this is WP:THESAMESTUFFEXISTS and was just !voted on three months ago. THF (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    None of the sources I provided are primary sources. If you still doubt the couch gags are more notable, there's additional sources here and here (ignore the TV.com results). This kind of coverage does not exist for the billboard gags. Theleftorium 21:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: first update to Simpsons opening in 20 years is notable. TomCat4680 (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How so? The change to the credits receives more than enough coverage in The Simpsons opening sequence, and this article is not about the change, it's a list of one-liners that appear for all of two seconds. -- Scorpion0422 00:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    *Keep there's plenty of coverage in reliable secondary news sources, and books also. ¨¨ victor falk 08:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am sorry to have confused blackboard and billboard and will never do so again.
    I am sorry to have confused blackboard and billboard and will never do so again.
    I am sorry to have confused blackboard and billboard and will never do so again.
    I am sorry to have confused blackboard and billboard and will never do so again.
    I am sorry to have confused blackboard and billboard and will never do so again.
    I am sorry to have confused blackboard and billboard and will never do so again.
    I am sorry to have confused blackboard and billboard and will never do so again.
    I am sorry to have confused blackboard and billboard and will never do so again.
    I am sorry to have confused blackboard and billboard and will never do so again.¨¨ victor falk 10:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Mandsford. 2005 called, it wants its Wikipedia back. This whole article violates WP:NOR policy, by the way. JBsupreme (talk) 08:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the WP:NOR violation? THF (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's a book on the market that has tonight's billboard gag on it, it's not original research. Most of these are based on someone watching TV at home and "Hey, where are you going, The Simpsons is coming on..." "I've got to get to edit a Wikipedia article before anyone else does!" Mandsford (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying it appeared on the show is not a OR violation. It's simply a primary source that can be verified by anyone watching the episode in question. Most, if not all, plot details on fictional subjects are from primary sources and that is within policy - it would only be a WP:NOR violation if the article contained conclusions derived from those primary sources - which there aren't. This article is possibly about a non-notable subject but it's not original research. Regards SoWhy 21:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unnotable, pointless trivia list from the series. If the best that can be said is that TV.com, a user-edited site, is "listing" it with the episode summaries, that's not notability nor relevance. Agree with JBsupreme, way time Simpsons stuff came in line with actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies instead of constantly skating around with content that would be unacceptable for any other series. Transwiki to the Simpsons wiki for the fans. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to the Simpson's opening scene article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom, and also per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons chalkboard gags (in that case, it was because of copyright issues). Users keep pointing to the list of couch gags, but there is a huge difference. For starters, it's been around 20 years longer, and has received coverage in tonnes of sources, which makes it a lot more notable. Yes, the billboard gags are part of an iconic show, but notability is not inherited. -- Scorpion0422 00:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is repeating a bunch of jokes from the show not an obvious WP:COPYVIO? Delete already. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Left, as he says, this isn't nearly as notable as the couch gags. CTJF83 chat 03:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Not an iconic part of the show. Too new to be in the class with the counch gags. At this point, it's fan trivia.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolute Keep. Its a developing iconic gag within the longest running prime time TV series. The list already self- demonstrates its notability. It has been going on for two seasons and there is no apparent end to the gag. Even by going on so long, it is a significant footnote and worthy of an article.Trackinfo (talk) 03:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't matter if its part of the "longest running prime time TV series". Notability is not inherited, and no sources cover this topic in detail. Articles shouldn't be written on speculation that the topic may meet the criteria in the future either. Theleftorium 14:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per Mandsford. Minimac94 (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete because notability is not inherited. Reyk YO! 22:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The Billboard's notability is not directly inherited. Not wanting to bring the cough gags to the discussion (but it's rather inevitable), but the billboards are, since they were introduced, an integral part of the opening sequence. True, the couch gags have featured in (nearly) every episode for more than 20 years, but that does not defeat the fact that the billboards have been there for more than a season, since the move to HD (the episodes that did not feature on can be compared to repeated couch gags).
      Furthermore (and more blantatly), the article was created shortly ago (fastest afd I've ever seen, really) and flagged for rescue.
      If the consensus determines deletion, very well, but it is not necessary to make it into a stillbirth... BrickBreak (talk) 01:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • How exactly are the billboard gags "an integral part of the opening sequence"? They are on screen for a few seconds and it never changes (unlike the couch gag, which can be anywhere from a few seconds to a minute and a half), and they don't even occupy the entire screen, just a portion of it (unlike the chalkboard gag). I don't see how it is any more notable or integral than any of the other variables in the credits like Lisa's sax solo, Ralph's one-liner, what flies across the screen, etc. -- Scorpion0422 03:27, 7 February 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 15:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Vanessa Perroncel[edit]

    Vanessa Perroncel (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)

    Flunks WP:BIO and WP:PERSISTENCE. Main claim to fame is a love triangle with two football players, one of whom is already married: BLP1E written all over that. THF (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Delete. Everything notable can be included in the John Terry and Wayne Bridge articles. JACOPLANE • 2010-01-30 14:17
    • Delete fails notability due to WP:ONEEVENT and her acting career hardly passes WP:ENT. --Jimbo[online] 15:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - With regard to WP:BLP1E I don't think that this is applicable. She had plenty of publicity in the 2006 FIFA World Cup as one of the England WAGs and there has been other coverage. I would add that this is not someone who has been dragged unwillingly into the public eye. She actively courted publicity, for example as a lingerie model and in her attempts to launch a film career. In the court case, the high court judge described her as "famous", and British judges are not given to hyperbole. Obviously her acting career doesn't make her notable but the question is whether the coverage, taken together, is sufficient to constitute notability? We have plenty of people on here who are 'famous for being famous'. It is a close call, and I am willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I currently think that she just about gets over the bar. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • By this argument, Rachel Uchitel is notable, as is the mistress of Wade Boggs, whose name I forget twenty years after she was the center of the sports scandal world. Maybe we need WP:GROUPIE standards for determining notability of women who make a career of sleeping with famous people, since the general consensus in the journalism community is that there's going to be a lot more of this type of story post-Tiger Woods scandal. But, me, for now, I'm happy to say that none of them meet WP:EFFECT until they get famous for other reasons. THF (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, that WAGs story has precisely a quarter of a sentence about Perrocel; she's mentioned going shopping with three other WAGs and buying 500-pound sunglasses. THF (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, she wouldn’t have passed the notability threshold before the current wave of publicity, I think that makes it a BLP1E. For someone being famous for being famous, I think this has to be sustained for a time (don’t think there’s been any coverage between 2006 and recently?) before we can say they definitely are. Cassandra 73 (talk) 18:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per User:Bridgeplayer  Francium12  19:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep in addiotion to Bridegeplayer's comments, which I endorse, I note that even the High Court of England has described her as "famous", which is far more than many people with Wikipedia articles can say. As the article states, she has modelled in some leading UK magazines, plus she is going to get much much more notable in the nest few days - see, for example, tomorrow's edition of the News of the World. She definitely merits an article in her own right. Hibbertson (talk)| —Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • Delete-Totally agree with Jimbo, she would like to be notable but she isn't. This one recent event is her attempt to become famous, I say let max clifford and the tabloids do their own work. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - she's not notable in her own right 129.11.76.229 (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. StAnselm (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Take away the 'news' that she is reported to have had sex with John Terry and there is not much you can say about her apart from her shopping and a baby with Wayne Bridge. Of course you can find references to her, she is the current flavour of the month but memorable - no; notable - very much no. --Egghead06 (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - the News of the World publishes a lascivious story about some stupid girl who's slept with a famous bloke pretty much every Sunday, and I don't see this one as any different -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete NN in her own right. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - totally in agreement with Jimbo. Not notable before on many Wiki-scales, one affair and an abortion with the England football captain doesn't push her into being "famous." Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - not notable in her own right. Shouldn't be merged either, as it's not clear what article it should be merged to - just leave her as a redlink. Robofish (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Nothing seems to have emerged which establishes any real notability outside this one event involving John Terry. There only seems to be trivial mentions outside of the context of that situation. Therefore, delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Adambro (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Wayne Bridge#Personal life. NN in her own right, but useful redirect for navigational purposes. Any useful information turned up by ARS can be moved there as well. RayTalk 18:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In hindsight, I should have just been bold and redirected without bringing the AFD. I agree with Ray. THF (talk) 20:28, 31 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. JForget 02:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Doof (musician)[edit]

    Doof (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 13:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Coverage appears to be well-hidden, but he has an entry in The Virgin Encyclopedia of Dance Music (entry confirmed but not visible on Google Books [59]), which itself is based on the mutli-volume The Encyclopedia of Popular Music (Oxford University Press, 10 volumes) and other coverage found: [60].--Michig (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I've got hold of a copy of The Encyclopedia of Dance Music, and it includes on pages 95-96 a bio taking up approx half a page of the book, which describes his album as "one of the most coherent and enduring releases in the 'Goa' trance style." An entry in a specialist print encyclopedia is generally sufficient to establish notability in my experience.--Michig (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Michig, would you be able to add that reference to article? That would help establish notability so that we don't end up back here in a few months. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 18:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.--Michig (talk) 19:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I know there's a blitz on biographies of living people at the moment, but there's nothing contentious on the page, and nothing that could be seen as invading his privacy. There are several good sources confirming his existence, and he passes the google test.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughcharlesparker (talk • contribs)
    • Keep in view of the new references provided (thank you Michig!), the artist does appear to be notable in his genre. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 19:58, 4 February 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. Cirt (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Journal of Vaishnava Studies[edit]

    Does not appear to be a notable publication. Wikidas© 13:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL[reply]

    • Strong Keep - well cited academic journal. Please see; [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], and [71] for a few of the text that cite this journal. Many prominent scholars use this journal to publish. Some examples are; Edwin Bryant [72]. Julius J. Lipner, Francis Xavier Clooney, Kenneth R. Valpey, Ravi Gupta, and Tamala Krishna Goswami [73]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Crusio (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am not impressed by the Google Books links provided by Ism schism: any journal will rack up some citations. However, an academic journal only becomes notable if it gets cited significantly, and that has not been shown. Neither is it conclusive that prominent scholars publish in the journal, although if it were complete garbage, these people would stay away from it, so I agree that it is a sign that there may be some notability here. The publisher's website is not very useful and does not indicate whether the journal is included in any significant indexing services. --Crusio (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment-- the reason "Many prominent scholars use this journal to publish" -- is not quite true, none of the people listed are 'prominent' -- Edwin Bryant, Kenneth R. Valpey, Ravi Gupta, and Tamala Krishna Goswami are all Hare Krishna and not 'prominent'. Francis Xavier Clooney is associated with their Oxford Centre and whatever he published there was a copy of what was published before. Again not 'prominent' but well known religious scholar, he is an ecumenically minded Catholic. I would say it is for the most part work of one man -- Satyaraja Dasa aka Steven J. Rosen who incidently is the creator of the article. Wikidas© 16:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Clooney has a named chair at Harvard, Lipner is a full professor at Cambridge, that's pretty "prominent". If they publish in this journal, that doesn't mean it is notable, but it does indicate that there may be something here. I agree about the relative prominence of the others. --Crusio (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Still in terms of Notability and inclusion, Clooney is for example on the board of International Journal of Hindu Studies and a good dozen other respectable journals, he has published once or twice in this Journal of Steven J. Rosen, but that hardly makes this Journal notable for inclusion. Do we have articles on European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Journal of Hinduism? Why would we start having articles for what was a private journal? Lipner published here only because his PhD student died and Steven J. Rosen dedicated one issue to this person. Now does an obituary by notable person for Tamala Krishna Goswami makes this publication notable for inclusion? Will you turn Wiki into an advertisement board for all minor Journals? Wikidas© 19:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI haven't !voted yet and I didn't say that the fact that these people publish here makes the journal notable. I only say that this may indicate that there is something more here. --Crusio (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The School of Oriental and African Studies's usage of this journal, and especially its scholars participation as editors, does meet - "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply This journal also meets the requirement, "frequently cited by other reliable sources," as shown by the links provided above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're wrong. The school's referring to some issue of the journal does not mean that reliable sources consider it to be influential in its subject area, it's just a reference, nothing else. Neither is the journal "frequently cited". The number of citations that you list would not be enough to show notability for one single researcher, let alone a whole journal. What you need here is hundreds if not thousands of citations, not a handful. --Crusio (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're wrong. The School of Oriental and African Studies's is a reliable source. The fact that two of their religion scholars edited a volume of the Journal of Vaishnava Studies shows that, "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential in its subject area." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Going through all the Google Books returns, I could find no analysis of this topic in secondary sources. I did find this and this which are trivial mentions. The Google Scholar returns are paltry, with next to no citations for any of the pitiful 61 articles. Abductive (reasoning) 21:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No convincing arguments to keep the article on this journal are being brought forward, so: Delete Changing to Weak keep per DGG below. --Crusio (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Not notable. MiRroar (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you care to expand on your reasons? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • That does help. There is a Danish secondary source that says "Mest signifikant er måske det relativt nye tidsskrift Journal of Vaisnava Studies, som udkommer fire gange årligt. Bidragyderne såvel som redaktionen tæller traditionelle akademiske forskere og ISKCON-folk..." which translates as "Most significant perhaps is the relatively new journal the Journal of Vaisnava Studies, which is published four times a year. Contributors as well as the editors include both traditional academic researchers and ISKCON-people...". Unfortunately, this seems a bit weak, as it is in a footnote and uses the word "perhaps". If one more such source could only be found... Abductive (reasoning) 05:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that none of the indexes list this journal among tens of thousands of others (Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Scopus do not list it). According to the policy a "few simple mentions in passing" (what to speak in footnotes with perhaps in Dannish etc., can not be taken as evidence that "The journal is considered by reliable sources to be influential". Web of Knowledge -- no mention. No evidence of notability in the form of impact factor assigned by the Institute for Scientific Information's Journal Citation Reports. No evidence from the Karlsruhe Virtual Catalog, or at the Zeitschriftendatenbank. In other words -- it does not satisfy the criteria in ether spelling of the name. 26991 Journals listed by Scopus include International Journal of Hindu Studies, but not this one. Wikidas© 09:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. The journal has been cited a handful of times, big deal... I see no reason to change my delete !vote. --Crusio (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you care to expand on your reasons? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    • Keep on several grounds: first, that the SOAS actually seems to have sponsored a special issue in it, which they would not have done had it not been the leading journal. Second, that Danish ref. above. Third, this is apparently the leading Western-language journal in the subject. There seem to be 2 such: this is in about 4 times as many libraries as the other, Journal of Śrīmanta Śaṅkaradeva Research Institute. WoS & Scopus are so disgracefully light on the humanities that a humanities journal not being in them is meaningless--this is different from the natural sciences. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per DGG. Sufficient evidence of notability.--Arxiloxos (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep on basis of opinion of DGG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Same reasons as DGG. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
    Then I suppose everybody else's reason is "not notable", as explained in Notability in Wikipedia? :) Abductive (reasoning) 06:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Ism schism and DGG.John Z (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment -- the last few votes seems to be an example of one member of Article Rescue Squadron vote followed by a few yesman votes. "It seems" and the guess that this journal is leading -- is nothing but the guess. But what can you do if Article Rescue Squadron instead of improving article itself, just doing mass voting. However it is not about vote, it is about consensus based on policy. At present still NN. DGG does not seem to know, but it seems everyone just votes based on his guess. Wikidas© 17:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Google news shows two results, the first one from a news site that doesn't have the article still on it, but entering the article name into Google you can find it hosted on many other sites, all crediting it as the original source. Odd. Plenty of book coverage, and DGG seems to know what he is talking about, so I'd say its a keeper. Dream Focus 06:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Observer's space[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Observer's space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This is related to another recently AfDed page by the same contributor, Quantized spacetime, a similar page of OR which makes little sense, with the same general references which do not support it. Perhaps someone else reading it will be able to better see what part of QM or GR it possibly could be merged with. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:05, 30 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) 15:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Short-lived recurring characters on Saturday Night Live[edit]

    Short-lived recurring characters on Saturday Night Live (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)

    Fancruft, virtually unsourced. The name is virtually contradictory to WP:NOTABLE. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If someone nominates them, they would each need to be judged on their own merits. Mandsford (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep For an extremely notable show, this is not inappropriate. In fact, I think one of the delete !votes is saying it should be deleted because of the lack of detail, which I think is somewhat odd, as that is a prime example of what can be fixed by editing. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 11:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. A few sketches, such as "Lothar of the Hill People" do have secondary sources, but they can be or already are covered in other articles. Otherwise this article is a refuge for non-notable material. Abductive (reasoning) 12:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not delete, although I agree with virtually every comment made by the editors above. However, the show is notable, and parts of this content can be salvaged or merged. I just don't see the need for the delete button here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:35, 30 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. JForget 02:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Abby Marshall[edit]

    Abby Marshall (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)

    Having 2200 Elo points at 18 and being a a Woman FIDE Master is nothing notable, even for a female. Once she becomes a Woman Grandmaster she could become notable, but for the moment she is not. SyG (talk) 12:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have not quite decided yet on this one. In most cases when a chess player winds up on AFD it is someone I've never heard about, but in this case we are dealing with a Chess Cafe columnist who writes The Openings Explained [90]. While I agree that a WFM title by itself is not much grounds for notability as a player, being a columnist means that this is not a clear cut case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Having Googled for some more sources, it appears that Ms. Marshall has been covered in international chess publications [91] and local non-chess publications [92]. I'm calling this sufficient for the general WP:BIO and WP:N and saying keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment All of the other chess players that have been AfD are people I had never heard of either. I have heard of this person from a few sources. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 03:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And for what it is worth, in the Feb. 2010 Chess Life, she is pictured on page 27 (playing in the 2009 World Youth Championship) and on page 29 is half a page she wrote about new female players. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 19:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep she has accomplished so much as a young adult and for female chess players. Even if you do not think she is the greatest chess player she is still a writer and authors need a wikipedia page lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.170.55 (talk) 06:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I agree that Marshall's rating and title do not in themselves make her notable, but her being the first female to win the Denker is a major accomplishment. Also, she is sufficiently covered in both international press and national, as shown by Sjakkalle. GrandMattster 15:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, her articles for Chesscafe and USCF make her notable. I would have called her notable even without that, but her career as a writer is just further proof of her notability. GrandMattster 21:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Neutral - This article fails notability of a person WP:BIO and as a chess player WP:ATH. The columnist aspect as it's not in the article and so has no source. So unless some reliable source for a columnist is forthcoming then it is a delete. SunCreator (talk) 23:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. But Sjakkalle has just provided a link above that shows she is a columnist for ChessCafe.com, a respected chess website. If I go and add it to the article now will you change your mind?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Sorry, should be been clearer. I was looking for a source to show a notable columnist, something to meet the notability of WP:BIO of say a writer or WP:ANYBIO but found nothing of significance. I take it from your comment you believe a columnist at ChessCafe.com can be notable just for being a columnist at ChessCafe? SunCreator (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawn my delete on the grounds of the new information about playing in the U-18 World Youth Chess Championship. SunCreator (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment- I believe the idea was notabilty was from representing your country at a national level. So we(me at least) are looking to find something comparable to representing your country at the Olympic Games or World Championships. I don't think a High School Champions counts. If she took part in a Women's Chess Olympiad or achieved something in a World Junior Chess Championship or World Youth Chess Championship that would be notable, but there is no sign she has. SunCreator (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We're at one delete, one neutral, and four keeps. Are we done? 205.122.213.2 (talk) 20:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is clear that there will be no consensus to delete. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy delete g3, hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    2010 Fibis Hard's Open[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    2010 Fibis Hard's Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy delete g3, blatant hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    2010 Fibis Hard's Oprn – Women's Singles[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    2010 Fibis Hard's Oprn – Women's Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy delete g3, part of walled garden of hoaxes. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Roxana Hoza[edit]

    Roxana Hoza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 per WP:HEY.  Skomorokh  17:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Brian Smyth[edit]

    Brian Smyth (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 has been tagged for notability concerns since 2008; still doesn't seem to have been established. Boleyn2 (talk) 11:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - I haven't a clue how to search for sources for Irish painters, but enough galleries far and wide have exhibited him, and a lot of his artwork pops up here and there. Several galleries profile him. Article quality and current article state are no reason to delete - I am commenting on potential. Hopefully someone more familiar than me can source something more concrete. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Couldn't find any significant independent coverage. Has been included in several exhibitions, but I'm not sure WP:ARTIST is met here. A few examples of significant coverage would help.--Michig (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There is no apparent significant coverage available and his exhibition record does not satisfy WP:ARTIST. This also fails WP:BIO due to the lack of non-trivial sources. freshacconci talktalk 13:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - or else he will become a struggling artist, and we don't want that on our consciences, do we?Red Hurley (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As you've been on Wikipedia for 3 years, I can only hope that's a joke. It is, isn't it? freshacconci talktalk 15:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added an encyclopedic listing [93]...weak keep for now...Modernist (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep now extra sources added. Ty 15:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (as article creator) - as sourcing has now been provided by Tyrenius. Ceoil sláinte 15:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy delete, G3. Obvious hoax. Blueboy96 19:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sonny samuela[edit]

    Sonny samuela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Hoax biography by bored schoolkid. Grahame (talk) 11:24, 30 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Stone (R&B/Jazz/House Producer, Composer, & Arranger)[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Mike Stone (R&B/Jazz/House Producer, Composer, & Arranger) (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 doesn't seem to meet notability guidelines. Prod and prod 2 removed by creator Mike Stone. Boleyn2 (talk) 11:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: "Born Dec. 27, 1969 as Mike Woods, Mike Stone is a new upcoming producer, composer, and arranger in the R&B, Jazz, and House music categories." Joe Chill (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep Replaced the incorrect prod with the correct one, and re-structured the sentence about Mike Stone's professional status.--Mikestone05 (talk) 03:05, 31 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) 00:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Zishan Engineers[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Zishan Engineers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    The article was previously nominated for deletion here and shortly after the article was deleted it was re-created. That would be fine if the reasons for deletion were addressed, which they appear not to be. A company is considered notable if there is significant coverage in secondary sources, which this appears not to be the case. Company listings as in buisness directories which appear to be the bulk of the referencing and secondary sources are considered trivial coverage at best. Without significant coverage in secondary sources the article appears to be failing Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:17, 30 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) 00:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Aziz Elbayeh[edit]

    Aziz Elbayeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No soucre indicated he is a professional footballer Matthew_hk tc 10:21, 30 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.  Skomorokh  17:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Friederich[edit]

    Peter Friederich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    This is just not notable - and amounts to a BLP1E

    Someone will say "ambassadors are notable" - but consider, Switzerland is a very small country and Luxembourg is tiny. Switzerland's ambassador to Luxembourg will be no more than a medium grade civil servant with no real status.

    The crime and conviction are then all we have. So we've got "medium grade diplomat convicted of money laundering and smuggling" and given a moderate sentence. Not enough for a biography. Scott Mac (Doc) 10:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong Keep, being ambassador is enough to merit an article, with or without his criminal convictions. I'd disturbed and offended by the argument "X is an unimportant country anyways". The Minister of Finance for Togo is as deserving of an article as the Minister of Finance for the United Kingdom. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That argument would mean that someone who played for the Vatican's national football team would be as important as someone who played for Brazil. In a large nation someone achieving ambassadorial status has acheived something significant - thousands of other diplomats of that nation will never reach that. With a small nation, an ambassador may be just about the only diplomat it has in a country, and being one is simply not as much as an acheivement. Plus an ambassador of a powerful nation will have more of an impact on world affairs than one from a small nation. There are 6.7 million Swiss and less than 0.5 million citizens of Luxembourg - an Ambassador to lux is not in the same league as the one to China, and a being the Swiss ambassador is not as significant as being that of Russia.--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete An ambassador would be a local un-elected public official, and lacking notability in the normal manner, fails Wikipedia:POLITICIAN#Politicians. MBisanz talk 21:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep I disagree that an ambassador is automatically notable. No guideline says that; and nor should it. We must look at WP:GNG. The coverage of his legal troubles is quite substantial. There could be an argument that WP:BLP1E applies, but I think the coverage is persistent enough to warrant inclusion and he was a reasonably significant (if not notable) person otherwise. Can be convinced to switch to delete, though. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The coverage all seems to be news coverage in 2002 (arrest) and 2005 (sentenced). So, it isn't really "persistent"? See this [94] and you'll find the hits since 2005 are false positives.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Ambassadors are notable , as high level national officials. One might conceivably quibble over the level, but how can one call it local? I am also not quite willing to write off the Swiss as having no significant influence in world affairs--for about 700 years they have had an influence very disproportionate to their population. I'll admit that Luxembourg is another matter, but the subject was also ambassador to Cuba--another player in world affairs to a extent disproportionate to its size, and to Vietman-- the same can be said about there. The sources are sufficient, including for the less reputable parts of his career, which are the problematic ones in terms of BLP. DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Reda Jaadi[edit]

    Reda Jaadi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No reliable source the player really exist and he did not made his professional debut, fails WP:athlete. Matthew_hk tc 10:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete only coverage is on sites such as football-talent.com which is user posted self promo type forum with no criteria for posting. Appears to be a youth player at SL, but no notability --ClubOranjeT 09:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Playing for a youth team doesn't confer notability. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ali Mosleh[edit]

    Ali Mosleh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No source he played in professional level Matthew_hk tc 10:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Im not fammmilar with International Soccer but; [95] clearly shows him to be a member of SV Wilhelmshaven. Pending if this team is considered professional than Id towards notability and be inclined to keep under WP: Athlete, however I am uncertain of this league and its play so if the integrity of the league isnt really professional id say delete. Any thoughts out there by someone famillar with this league? Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The Regionalliga in which SV Wilhelmshaven play is a semi-professional league, and so he fail's WP:ATHLETE. There's no indication he would pass any other notability criteria neither. Bettia (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (talk) 11:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentRegionalliga was the 3rd level which may notable. But Ali Mosleh played at Regionalliga AFTER it became the 4th level, which is sem-pro level. Matthew_hk tc 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - per previous comments. SV Wilhelmshaven isn't fully pro, and there's no evidence he played in a fully pro league before joining them. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Adam Hamid[edit]

    Adam Hamid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No soucre he played at professional league Matthew_hk tc 10:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - FSV Oggersheim doesn't play in a fully porfesional league, and there are no sources to support that he ever played proffessionally elsewhere. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mazan Moslehe[edit]

    Mazan Moslehe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No source he made his professional debut as of this season Matthew_hk tc 09:57, 30 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) 00:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahmad El Jammal[edit]

    Ahmad El Jammal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No soucre indicate he was played at a fully-pro level, google hit only a echo of wiki, tried different spelling like Ahmed El Jamaal but no result. Matthew_hk tc 09:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. As far as I understand the 72 football clubs of Swedish Division 2 are not fully professional, which is the requirement of WP:ATHLETE, so players of those clubs are not automatically notable. And there is nothing else in the article to indicate that he's done anything else to be considered notable. Tomas e (talk) 14:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment the creator Smkaram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) claimed he is part of the senior football team and even added him to squad list with no.25. But it is false. Matthew_hk tc 03:02, 31 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) 00:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahmed Boussi[edit]

    Ahmed Boussi (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)

    He never played fully-professional league, fails wP:athlete Matthew_hk tc 09:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC) Delete - per nom. Never played professionally and therefore fail WP:ATHLETE. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mounier Raychouni[edit]

    Mounier Raychouni (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)

    He never played a professional match, fails WP:athlete. Matthew_hk tc 09:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. He's hery clearly a non notable player. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:11, 30 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Skillstrain[edit]

    Skillstrain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Article was speedy deleted as A7 - company with no indication of notability. DRV overturned, holding that the controversies section constituted a claim to notability. [96], the version that was chached by Google, looks to show notability better than the version that was stubbed and deleted. Concern is Notability as defined by WP:CORP. This nomination is neutral. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • This needs either to be deleted or to be edited into a version that addresses the controversies through independent sources without violating undue weight (the old version was pretty good; it just weighted the negative stuff a little too heavily). If you look at the news stories for this company, its primary notability seems to stem from the controversies, so as it stands it's both inaccurate and non-neutral. Chick Bowen 22:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A small point, A7 actually calls for a credable claim of importance not notibility. That is specifically stated to be a lower threashold than notibility so a rejection of A7 is not an endorsement of the notibility of the article or even evidence that the article passes notibility guidelines.--76.69.167.214 (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GedUK  08:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User Tesug has repeatedly removed entire sections of information from this article that are backed by valid sources such as the BBC. At the moment I am having to repeatedly undo Tesug's deletions of info every other day. If there are positive media reports relating to the company in questions then those should be added to the article rather than verisiable existing info being deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invest-agator (talk • contribs) 17:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User Invest-agator clearly has an agenda. Whilst old references are sometims of value, aged links to entries that no longer apply (the same could be said of various quality companies that have crossed paths with the BBC in the past) should be replaced to keep the article of practical value to readers needing up to date information. In terms of the issues raised there is a new link to a recently made video that clearly answers questions for readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tesug (talk • contribs) 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - I can't find coverage of this subject outside of press releases. Seems to fail WP:CORP. -- Atama頭 21:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep - Still not stellar, but the citations found by Hamiltonstone suggest that they barely meet WP:N. The coverage is mostly about the event which is why I'm not enthusiastic about supporting the article but it does seem to merit inclusion. -- Atama頭 05:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, but intervene to ensure neutrality. I have doen a bit of digging. This is my take:
    • Skillstrain / Metropolitan International Schools Limited largely has media coverage for a single (but quite significant) event not mentioned in the article at all: a 2009 court case in which it unsuccessfully sought to sue Google because Google's search engine results included allegedly defamatory remarks about Skillstrain. Those remarks relate to the alleged scamming / conduct associated with some of the company's sales activities and operations.
    • The court case is sufficiently important that it rates mention on WP, however it is almost (see below) the only context in which Skillstrain appears to receive coverage in reliable sources. The company does appear to have an efficient publicity machine resulting in non-notable coverage of its own sponsored awards etc, but not coverage of the company per se.
    • The other reliable media coverage appears to be the two BBC reports that one editor persistently deletes from this article. Given that they represent the only substantive reliable coverage of the organisation, that deletion is inappropriate.
    • There appear to be two webpages that might be reliable sources, that may host a document involving some sort of complaint investigation re Skillstrain, but my browser is giving error messages when trying to visit them. Someone else might like to try:
    If the article is kept, it should primarily cover the court case and the questions raised by the BBC investigation, and the coverage of the investigation should include a summary of the company's response. I am happy to assist in ensuring neutrality at the article, but not if everyone else here has a consensus to delete. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    PS I have now updated the article to reflect the above sources, but still haven't been able to access the Advertising Standards Authority material, which is likely to be important.hamiltonstone (talk) 02:52, 5 February 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Midnight Beast[edit]

    The Midnight Beast (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 per WP:BAND and WP:WEB, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by anonymous IP editor. MuffledThud (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the following related pages because the subject is the same single by which the band claims notability, and for which neither the references given nor a web search for evidence supports there is no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources (sentence updated at 09:28, 30 Jan. 2010 by MuffledThud):

    Tik Tok (Parody) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) MuffledThud (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both are notable:
    • Weak keep both - Tik Tok was a hit single (#39 in Ireland), which also makes the band notable. Possibly. There's some coverage in Google News, but not a lot. --Michig (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep both The band has charted. Their parody has charted.—Iknow23 (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep both In addition to charting in Ireland, the song is on Australias digital downloads chart. It's also being played on Australian commercial radio stations, meeting criteria 11 of WP:BAND. Themania (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both Should be moved to at most a mention in the article for the song being parodied. These guy's aren't the next Lonely Island or Weird Al, and while some bands who have produced parodies have been signed to major labels, band and song articles should be withheld until when and if such action occurs. JEMdev (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. Per Michig.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The band are notable due to the criteria listed above by Adabow. The comments made by JEMdev are POV, don't cite any of wikipedia's rules on deletion and shouldn't be taken into consideration. Technohead1980 (talk) 14:11, 6 February 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. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Raja (actor)[edit]

    Raja (actor) (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)

    KillerservTalk 08:39, 30 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) 00:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Amin Fadel[edit]

    Amin Fadel (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)

    Footballer who has only played youth level football, no evidence he represented his country at senior level. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Unreferenced BLP, contested PROD by creator ClubOranjeT 08:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ClubOranjeT 08:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment seems a hoax. Matthew_hk tc 09:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Rsp. player does exist, simply fails notability. [101] shows he plays in U-19 team at Fortuna Düsseldorf--ClubOranjeT 10:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is because he is the same guy added hoax player Ali Sabra to A.C. Monza Brianza 1912, he is clever to create hoax with one account and non-notable footballers (2 or 3 notable in his creations) but seems forgot to logoff. Matthew_hk tc 11:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete: Regardless of whether this player exists or not, he clearly fails both WP:ATHLETE, and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete: per nom. ErikHaugen (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahmed Abdul Ghafour al-Samarrai[edit]

    Ahmed Abdul Ghafour al-Samarrai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No recent specific G-news coverage, looks like a WP:BLP1E. Creator already indef blocked for copyright violations. MBisanz talk 08:28, 30 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.  Skomorokh  17:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Michalis Zampelas[edit]

    Michalis Zampelas (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)

    Mayor of a city of 50,000 people isn't inherently notable, nor is being a manager at an accounting firm with thousands of partners. MBisanz talk 08:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep Other mayors of Nicosia have wikipedia pages. I have yet to find a mayor of a capital who is not on wikipedia--Polysophia (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    Keep Mike Warren (mayor of Pitcairn) which has a population of under 50 is on Wikipedia.

    • Keep. Being mayor of Nicosia is a far more prominent position than being mayor of an average municipality with an equivalent population, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who follows world affairs. Am I the only one who is starting to consider the deletion nominations of this editor, who has positions of trust here and has put himself forward for even more such positions, to be becoming disruptive? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Aigo MID[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Aigo MID (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 computer model, no sources to support content or any assertions of why it is a unique/important product. MBisanz talk 08:20, 30 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) 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    DSMW[edit]

    DSMW (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable software extension, possibly fails WP:SELFREF MBisanz talk 08:19, 30 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) 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Shinji Hosoe[edit]

    Shinji Hosoe (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 article was identified and tagged as needing sources back in May 2008. Well, that sure hasn't happened. Still lacking is non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 07:48, 30 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) 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Feast of the Vampires[edit]

    Feast of the Vampires (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)

    At first, it was a copyright-violation. Now, there's not much left. I tried to look for something that makes this notable... alas... y'know. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:42, 30 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.  Skomorokh  17:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Brenda Jean Patrick[edit]

    Brenda Jean Patrick (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 consultant (near-advertisement) Orange Mike | Talk 02:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I created this article because of the work Ms. Patrick has done within the school system of Texas (including the Pathways alternative school in Sherman/Denison, where I have been involved in a volunteer capacity for a number of years). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captaincorgi (talk • contribs) 05:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I appreciate the comments of Eastman in this regard. Ms. Patrick is not a famous person (in the same sense that Tiger Woods or Britney Spears is famous), and there are not many mentions of her in the mainstream media. She has done her work as an academic in classrooms and meeting rooms where the press is not in attendance. And, if she is mentioned at all, it's in small newspapers in small Texas towns like Mexia, Prosper, etc.

    That's because Ms. Patrick is working to make school systems responsive to parents and students. In years gone by, school administrators could be disdainful of parents and students because they had near absolute power over a child's life.

    That is no longer true in many areas of Texas and the rest of the U. S. because of the work of Ms. Patrick--and dozens of other academics who are, likewise, largely unknown to the general public.

    I believe Ms. Patrick's body of work is worthy of recognition because I have seen the results firsthand. I have also been told about them by elementary school principals where she has been involved in establishing these programs (notably the innovative and award-winning J. C. Austin Elementary in Mesquite, TX).

    If given direction by others, I will be glad to edit Ms. Patrick's bio to fit Wikipedia guidelines (as I have been working to do for the past two months).

    Again, I agree with Eastman's philosophy. Just because Ms. Patrick's bio has been nominated for deletion from Wikipedia doesn't mean it should be.

    Captaincorgi (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Sources show that she is notable. The article probably could be trimmed down a bit so that it is not so much about her views. (see WP:Coatrack) Borock (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Undoubtedly a worthy and constructive person but that is not the same as notable. It is hard to find evidence of this. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

    Article has been trimmed to remove all Ms. Patrick's views. Captaincorgi (talk) 05:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep. Per Eastmain.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral - Yes she's in several sources, but none of them seem to be major publications. Many of the references are in newspapers of cities of less than 10,000 people (Mexia Daily News and Prosper Press), others are cities of around 30,000 (Copperas Cove Leader-Press and Herlad Democrat). The article is far less promotional than it was when it was nominated for deletion. However, if it is kept I think all of the external links can be deleted, as I don't really see how they directly relate to Ms. Patrick. PDCook (talk) 19:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 07:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional sources added, including Dallas Morning News.Captaincorgi (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: More sources would not make me inclined to suggest keep. It appears to me like this individual sends out press releases to all the local papers when she speaks to a school, which dutifully run a small item. The mentions in the newspapers do not appear to me to be significant coverage, merely mentioning her. Trying to distill the article into a few words: she is a consultant to school districts, one of 10 members of a non-profit board, and a winner of a state-level prize given to school assistants. Individual teachers get mentions in newspaper articles quite often (Miss Smith's 7th grade class recently took a field trip... Mr. Jones' orchestra recently went on a trip to Disney World) but this does not make them notable either, in my opinion. Not even winners of the National Teacher of the Year have their own article (except for one who now works for the White House).
    The article began as a a copy-paste from http://brendajeanpatrick.com/about.html (compare to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brenda_Jean_Patrick&oldid=323566730), and has improved little since then. Half the articles linked to are hosted on her own website, which doesn't strike me as being too reliable. (And even were they reliable, there'd still be a notability problem.) Cheers, --BaronLarf 22:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    References that were linked to Ms. Patrick's personal website have been removed from the listing.Captaincorgi (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No, they had not been. I removed 5 more just now. Cheers --BaronLarf 22:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Enough sources to show that she is notable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Over half of the sources in that article did not even reference Brenda Jean Patrick. Five of the linked sources that did link to her were hosted by her own website. (I have now eliminated those links and sources). --BaronLarf 22:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - Why do a few of the references in the article point to other Wikipedia pages? Wikipedia is not a reliable source. PDCook (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't believe there are circular references back to Wikipedia in the Reference section any more. If there are, please remove them--or point them out to me and I will remove them. The See Also topics do relate to Wikipedia topics and are there so that someone who is interested in the concept of customer service can find more in-depth discussions of the topic and the ways in which business organizations handle customer service/customer care issues. At one time, I had links in External Links that may have referred to Wikipedia. BaronLarf removed those. The only reason I included them in the first place was so that readers would be able to find additional discussion of the concept of customer service in education. References I located indicated that the idea of educational institutions treating students like customers dates back at least to the mid-1970s and gradually trickled down to public school districts. Please let me know what else you would like me to do to make the article acceptable.Captaincorgi (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If your question regards the blue linked references in the body of the article, I have no idea where they came from. I didn't put them. One day, I looked at the article and found that these links to certain word strings had "magically" manifested themselves overnight.Captaincorgi (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    They were added here and linked internally here and here. No worries, I removed them with this edit. PDCook (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much.Captaincorgi (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I should add that if you want to cite those Who's Who books, you'll have to add the full citation. The cite book template is helpful. PDCook (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Who's Who books are generally not considered reliable sources anyway. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:14, 4 February 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 Nikkatsu, without prejudice against re-splitting at a later date if sufficient reliable coverage can be found.  Skomorokh  17:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Kyusaku Hori[edit]

    Kyusaku Hori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    It is not clear whether he is notable. While he was president of a notable company, that does not guarantee that he was himself notable. The only "reference" is a link to a photograph, together with a caption which confirms he was president of Nikatsu [sic] Films, but nothing else. A Google search for "Kyusaku Hori" produces a few hundred hits, but I have looked at a few dozen of them, and failed to find any substantial coverage. Mostly we have a brief mention of Kyusaku Hori in an article about something else which briefly touches on him. He may be notable, but at present I can find no evidence that he comes near to satisfying WP:PEOPLE. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Redirect if no other sources can be found. I think thats a fair outcome for this particular article. JBsupreme (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Presumably redirect to Nikkatsu? I would settle for that. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect to Nikkatsu. I see no reason to delete the text that is there. Chutznik (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 07:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Prior to the relist, everyone so far agrees to a redirect / merge of sorts. Unless someone contests this, I don't see any reason not to expedite the closure of this debate rather than go another week. Consensus has been reached so far. JBsupreme (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect to Nikkatsu; I agree with the reasoning of JamesBWatson. And I agree with JBsupreme that it looks like consensus has been reached.--BaronLarf 08:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect It is sad that someone has not done some in-depth study on the man. per JBsupreme & Baron --Bejnar (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 04:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 05:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. There are a few independent references to him in a number of books about the Japanese film industry. I'm guessing that the difficulty in finding verification lies in the fact that he was active pre-internet (so you won't find many news articles and the like) and that anything about him will be in Japanese. I agree that it's a pity it hasn't been possible to find more about him. Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:44, 4 February 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. Despite the valiant efforts of the authors, there is consensus here that the article does not display the level of independent coverage in reliable sources we demand for biographical subjects.  Skomorokh  17:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rob Tillitz[edit]

    Rob Tillitz (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)

    An incredibly promotional autobio on a non-notable author. The article claims that the subject is a fisherman/smuggler/writer/actor/innkeeper, but the links that would verify most of that appear to be broken, and nothing shows in google news. (Even if true, it's not clear to me that being a felon and an author makes one notable). There does appear to have been a book that was reviewed by a blogger. There's also un-substantiated claims that the book is in rewrites with a screenwriter who may or may not be notable, in which case I think WP:CRYSTAL applies. Bfigura (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete. Not notable, even if statements on page were true. Appears to be a good candidate for a speedy. --BaronLarf 08:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete He does not meet the WP:Bio threshold. His books are self-published and have not received any notice. The citations to the Seattle Times are incomplete and don't link. Searching turned up "10-year sentence for man convicted of smuggling hashish into Washington" which is about Falco, but mentions Tillitz's flight to Mexico and 12 year sentence in passing. So he is a felon. No mention of him was found in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer or the Seattle Weekly. --Bejnar (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    *DON'T DELETE-- The information I relate in my article is indeed true, though hard to verify least with my limited Wiki knowledge. Not to mention the crime was committed in 1992, and the conviction in '98. There were many articles in dozens of newspapers, including all the major Seattle papers, but their internet-accessable archives don't go back that far. Should have worked with the material in the sandbox longer. Did not realize the standards, and thought I could simply start the article and put it together over a period of time. Thus, on the one hand I agree with the critical comments generated so far as my article is a rough draft, on the other I'm not sure that discouraging new material, or material from an ex-felon and self-published writer, is the intent of Wikipedia. I thought Wiki was here to gather knowledge. If you Google my name, you will get a ton of hits. I am someone who has accomplished many things, and many say an inspiration. Michael Keoph, who wrote the book The Fisherman's Son, an author that for some years has held the title, at least on the West Coast, as the man who best depicts fishing, said about my book "Bootlegger's Cove" that it portrays a fisherman's struggle better than any other work, and he included "The Perfect Storm," which was not at all about the big wave, but about how tough commercial fishing is on families and of course the fishermen themselves.

    I've sold about 600 copies of Bootlegger's Cove since I self published in April/2009. I think that's significant. The story, if you guys would let me tell it, is one that continues to effect many, and I think at least as notable as Jeffrey R. MacDonald, a man I did time with, and who killed his wife and children. Work with me please. I'm trying to put together an informative piece. Before June Morrall passed away earlier this month, she was enthralled with my story, and posted me many places in her three blog/sites. Her article here on Wiki asks for more links to her, more support for her, and I'm trying and being chastised.

    Is this forum meant mainly for criticism, or are there helpful contributors out there. I feel like the new kid at school that is not particulary good-looking, not part of the in-crown, and is thus being picked on. Nevertheless, thank you guys for your criticism, as I am trying to figure out the Wike program, and you're comments add pieces. I have a lot to offer. Few know about what commercial salmon trolling was like, as it's been closed for many years. Prison depicted in a non oh-poor-me light (i.e., the benefits I received from doing time) you'll not find on Wiki, nor many other places either. Then there's Mexico as a fugitive. Robalone (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)Rob Tillitz[reply]

    Technically, this forum is to decide whether or not the article should be kept. That decision will be made on whether you would be considered a notable author as defined by this page. As a general rule, self-published authors aren't considered notable, and their articles are deleted. In general Wikipedia isn't a place to promote yourself, or raise awareness of your books. While we also like getting new information, because wikipedia works on the principle of verifiability, that information would need to based on reliable sources, not your personal experiences. -- Bfigura (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is never whether information is true, or not, as Bfigura says above, it is about the verifiability of information from reliable sources, and whether the person meets the notability guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    *DON'T DELETE-Italic text I have now verified all of my pertinent information. Had many bad links because I did not set them up right, and I also found a long and detailed story in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that I did not have before. There is a great story by Seth Rosenfeld in the 7/AUG/1994 SF Examiner Magazine, and I have a copy of it, but cannot find it online in order to link--Can I scan that and use that somehow? About self publishing, Writer's Digest sent me a link last summer to an article that proclaims as of last spring sales of self published books have surpassed conventionally published books. In this world of computers, everyone is an author, and publishing houses are inundated with manuscript submissions. It is impossible to get published conventionally today unless you've history. Does not matter if one is the greatest writer ever, your manuscript does not get read. Thus, I did what it took to get published, and that I sold 600 books on my own is significant. Maybe that is the meat of my story: The journey of self-publication, and winding up on the big screen. I've been, by the way, on the Eureka NPR station, and the Brookings, Oregon, TV station, and in a handful of coastal newspapers, all interviews about the book. Everyone is not only intrigued with the book, but the journey to get it published and the contract with Ryan McKinney for the screenplay that followed. It is not about selling books. Honestly, I really could care less if this article sells me a single copy. I am taking the time out of a busy schedule to do this because many people have insisted. Maybe it's not a significant story in your world, but it is in many others.

    Just the same, the article grows as I'm able to learn the Wiki process, as well as marshall more verifiable facts. Thank you guys for taking the time to comment, though I argue with you, I'm learning from your observations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.238.175.170 (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - Two self-published books that might take off, or at least get some mainstream reviews; and a script that might someday get made into a movie. If those things happen, the author could become notable. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and this author is not yet ready for an encyclopedia article. I wish him luck with his career and hope the article can be resubmitted later when he becomes more notable. --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - doesn't pass WP:BIO, due to a lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. If additional references exist, even offline ones, they should be provided; as it is, he doesn't seem sufficiently notable for inclusion. Robofish (talk) 01:40, 2 February 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) 21:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Glamorous Monique[edit]

    Glamorous Monique (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)

    Speedy deleted as a G10: unsourced (or in this case very poorly sourced) negative or contentious WP:BLP). This was objected to on my talk page because the homepage of the subject did describe her as the article did. I still believe a G10 is defendable, but an AfD will do as well. Apart from the problems of verifying that Governemt worker Monique Allen is really Glamorous Monique or not, the article utterly fails WP:BIO anyway: No Google News sources[102] General web sources are blogs, myspace, facebook, ..., but no apparent reliable independent sources. Fram (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. I wouldn't expect this to get any Gnews hits and as a club/music fixture it would really be limited, but I'll have a look to see what hope may exist. That there is a documentary about her , "veil of invisibility", do in 2010 means this article may simply be too new. -- Banjeboi 02:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not the strongest source but in this interview she is identified as Monique Allen.
      • Another interview here.
      • The name may be part of the issue but as of yet I can't find much to support keeping this. There is little doubt that she has been discussed repeatedly as a club fixture but likely those mentions are old enough as to never made it online. Likewise I have no problem believing that she may be in at least a few or perhaps many documentaries specifically on T-girls for which she seemingly would be one of the most visible at the time. However I'm not finding any evidence of this coverage ergo it must be a delete until such sources are readily apparent. -- Banjeboi 02:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 07:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Notability cannot be established by verifiable sources. Wikipeterproject (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not notable; Google search turns up only facebook, myspace, and Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete as the level and reliability of coverage in secondary sources is not of the standard we usually demand from biographical articles. Feel free to request userfication or incubation either from me or another administrator.  Skomorokh  17:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yosef Chaim Shwekey[edit]

    Yosef Chaim Shwekey (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)

    Does not assert notability, no references provided. Should have been CSD'ed as unremarkle. Yossiea (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete non-notable individual, no sig coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 18:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The HE WP is tolerating the article of this relatively new singer. His album is apparently distributed in 'Galpaz' which is the Haredi version of Tower Records. --Shuki (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep He is a sensation in the jewish music world. Nerguy (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably delete. This article comes by translation, word-for-word, from Hebrew Wikipedia (see interwiki link) by user "Bagel" who is not a native English speaker. I could clean up the translation but there's no point. Regardless of how popular Jewish editors think he is, he's not achieved the WP:MUSIC standard. I'd venture that his brother Yaakov Shwekey actually is notable by this standard. Yosef is just not there yet. Aside from the one album he's released, the other info in the bio is unreferenced, and we don't like to keep unreferenced BLPs. Frankly I'm surprised that Hebrew Wikipedia has it, since their standards are usually stricter. Chutznik (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 07:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: Could someone look at following links, please? [103], [104], [105]. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Userfy. First off, in response to Shuki, the Hebrew wikipedia, from what I can tell, is not big on requiring sources and often becomes local-centric. For now, YCS has one album out on a sub-culture label. The links that Vejvančický posted do talk about the album and about him but are not really high on the list of WP:RS. If Vejvančický wants he can try rewriting the article based only on those sources but even then I don't think he passes WP:MUSIC. Joe407 (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: The question of what are the sources paying attention to him is a real one. The reviews and links mentioned here are all blogs or close to it (news aggregators etc). As a comparison I looked at another religious, Jewish musician who has only released one album and may have gotten a boost from a more famous brother. After searching around even just a little bit I was able to find four major interviews with 3 major Israeli newspapers who definitely pass WP:RS - Maariv, Yediot & Hatofeh. In light of that, I translated the article in the Hebrew WP for Yonatan Razel (see sources on the talk page).
    In contrast, the article for Yosef Chaim does not make the official cut as outlined in WP:MUSIC and IMHO he does not yet need an article here. Joe407 (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: It seems that in the rather insular world of "shiney shoe music" (monikker of Hassidic pop), this Shwekey shines. His album is fairly popular, and his antics appear periodically in the gossip columns of Hassidic papers and websites (see, for example, http://www.kikarhashabat.co.il/19360.html) --Ravpapa (talk) 13:29, 2 February 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.  Skomorokh  17:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mary Geaney[edit]

    Mary Geaney (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 was one of those unsourced biographies that had been hanging around for 5 years. Well, we found some sources. Two blogs, and one other article which does mention her in passing. The problem is, I've done an extensive Google News Archives search and am not really finding anything to suggest this person passes our general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. I would have thought a hockey player that had represented her country, as long as this can be verified, which appears to be the case here, would be likely to pass WP:ATHLETE, but we need to know in which competitions/matches she played in. Deleting this would be a loss of 2 sentences so I can't really see an argument for keeping without further evidence of coverage. --Michig (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as article fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:ATHLETE. Armbrust (talk) 22:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep WP:ATHLETE says "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport". It does not say anything about "know[ing] which competitions/matches she played in". We have a reliable source that states that Geaney played on a national team in international competition. The problem is, given her birth date, this was almost surely in the mid 1970s, and news stories from that era are generally not available online. The sources that would give details surely exist in print, but it might well take some time in a reference library, quite possibly a reference library in Ireland, to find them. Still we have a WP:RS stating that this person was a "former Irish hockey international". I contend that fulfills WP:ATHLETE, and makes the person notable. True this is less cited coverage than would be expected for a player from the internet age, but under the circumstance i think this should do. I might add that the "two blogs" (two issues of the same online publication) appear to be quoting official results, and to be serving as, in effect, a special-purpose newspaper for golf in Scotland. It accepts paid advertising, and appears to have an editorial process in place. It thus should, IMO count as a reliable source for the kind of content (specialized sports news) it contains. (seee http://scottishgolfview.com/Advertising.htm) But i grant that the mentions of this person in Kirkwoodgolf are not sufficient to provide notability on their own. DES (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      I can also find several references, such as http://www.sportfocus.com/newspub/story.cfm?ID=16997 to a Mary Geaney who was the captain of the winning team in the 1980 all-Ireland Camogie championship, and was "Kerry’s best known camogie player", which would IMO fulfill WP:ATHLETE. This is the right time frame and location (County Kerry, Ireland) and might well be the same person, but so far I can't establish it. DES (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Sunday Tribune reference is basically the same passing mention ("the former Irish hockey international"). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, kurykh 07:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep meets all athlete guidelines. Ikip 02:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep verifiably played hockey for Ireland, so, per WP:ATHLETE and common sense, is a suitable subject for an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Eien (Shunichi Miyamoto song)[edit]

    Eien (Shunichi Miyamoto song) (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)

    Almost empty and content is Japanese. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. As per nom. --DAJF (talk) 10:37, 31 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) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Stab Proof Scarecrows[edit]

    Stab Proof Scarecrows (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 book, unsourced. MBisanz talk 07:03, 30 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) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't Care 'bout Nothin'[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Don't Care 'bout Nothin' (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)

    Empty. Probably speedy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:50, 30 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) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Violent New Breed (song)[edit]

    Violent New Breed (song) (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)

    Empty. Probably a speedy. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete The song never charted [106], so this wouldn't be notable even with content. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - perhaps created in innocence by someone unfamiliar with inclusion and notability precedents. It happens. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:11, 31 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) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Red Hot (song)[edit]

    Red Hot (song) (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)

    Empty. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete The song never charted [107], so this wouldn't be notable even with content. Yappy2bhere (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - perhaps created in innocence by someone unfamiliar with inclusion and notability precedents. It happens. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:10, 31 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) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Living Without You[edit]

    Living Without You (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)

    Empty. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:37, 30 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) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Heartbreak Blvd.[edit]

    Heartbreak Blvd. (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)

    Empty. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:34, 30 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) 00:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Helter Skelter (single)[edit]

    Helter Skelter (single) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable single. At the very least, this should be merged into Helter Skelter (song). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. People should be directed to the informative page, not this track listing where they will meet only with bitter disappointment and no answers to their burning questions. 208.51.70.130 (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Already cited in the article on the original Beatles' song. This version is non-notable, so a redirect is not appropriate. Warrah (talk) 12:19, 30 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) 00:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Long Search[edit]

    The Long Search (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)

    Unsourced, cannot find much coverage of this series on Google.  fetchcomms☛ 04:23, 30 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. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Battle of Jahra[edit]

    Battle of Jahra (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)

    Unsourced now and can't find significant coverage for this battle from Google.  fetchcomms☛ 04:07, 30 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. JForget 01:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Article was also moved during the discussion to Mint (software) --JForget 01:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mint (stats)[edit]

    Mint (stats) (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 software product is not notable. It has the obligatory two minimum links but they do not measure up to any significance. This is spam posing as an article. Miami33139 (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You know what? You're right I guess I was. I am still not convinced it's notable but sources help me say it is Switch to Keep. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep external sources, including a book, look solid. LotLE×talk 23:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Lots of books cover it [108] [109] [110][111] [112]. Pcap ping 05:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep popular and widely used. Mint has also inspired secondary products, both as plug-ins and iPhone apps. The comment about SEO is mistaken. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Why is it called (stats)? Shouldn't that be (software)? "Mint (stats)" gets a lot of Google news results for something totally unrelated. Adjusting the search I find an article about the software at Internet Financial News[113]. Also found a cached article [114] of www.thehostingnews.com which Google news search says is a legitimate news source. Dream Focus 06:04, 5 February 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 as consensus seems solid that the subject has not been shown to have had sufficient reliable coverage or to have won a significant individual award that our notability guideline in this area would seem to demand.  Skomorokh  16:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ion Davidov[edit]

    Ion Davidov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 05:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 05:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep His best known film "Lucky Lucas" won the GayVN best foreign film in 2000 (the film is described in Waitt, Gordon; Markwell, Kevin (2006), Gay tourism: culture and context, Routledge, p. 98, ISBN 9780789016034 due to good use of the rural landscape) and a GayVN nomination for Best Threesome in 2006. He has starred in at least 13 films including the notable cross-genre "Vampire of Budapest". There is sufficient prospect of reliable sources being added that the article should be marked for improvement rather than deleted. Ash (talk) 08:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per Ash, GayVN is recognised as a significant award for gay pornographic titles, see (Category:Pornographic film awards), and has had published material written about him. I fail to see how this fails per either WP:GNG or WP:PORNBIO. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  16:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • What significant independent material has been written about him? Two of the sources are photo books published by a film company he's worked for, and the other doesn't even mention him. Which significant award has he won? Epbr123 (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair point on the lack of independent material, though I don't much fancy looking around for it given the topic. I also thought the award related to him; instead it relates to the film. Struck accordingly. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  19:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • If someone had appeared in 13 horror films as a lead character and at least two of the films were winners of international awards, would we even be having this discussion? Why are you pushing special notability requirements for this genre (on a bundle of similar articles) compared to any other, perhaps gay sex is the issue here rather than notability? If you want to find better sources try looking for them, in particular there will be a plentiful supply of gay magazines that discuss him and his work (they are just not on-line) and each of the 13 films counts as a reference-able source. At the moment I see sufficient to address the notability requirements on the ground of WP:ARTIST and replace this attempt at deletion with marking the article for improvement. Ash (talk) 09:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • In addition to the two awards mentioned above, the following can be added: An American in Prague - Winner: Best Selling Tape of the Year - 1999 GayVN Award, The Vampire of Budapest - Winner: Best International Video - 1996 Grabby Awards. Ash (talk) 09:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The awards went to films, not him. He doesn't pass WP:ARTIST as his work hasn't "been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Epbr123 (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Ash. Ground Zero | t 21:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Contrary to the nom's opinion, the significant career indeed meets WP:ENT and WP:PORNBIO. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      How does he meet those? Epbr123 (talk) 10:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Per his career and awards. How can it possibly be perceived that does he not? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Criteria 1 of PORNBIO is not satisfied when performer is part of a film that wins the award. Not enough evidence that person passes ENT. ARTIST for me is for the producers and directors of the genre. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. It seems that this subject might be notable, but the article doesn't make much of a case. Absent someone finding reliable sources that talk about the subject, deletion seems the only option as it won't be demonstrated that this meets either the general notability guideline or the biographies of living persons policy. Arguing about the minutiae of guidelines means that the big picture is being missed I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Fat Boy Chronicles[edit]

    The Fat Boy Chronicles (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 book is not notable. I've asked for reliable sources, but all that happened was that the only reliable source available was removed! This lone source is from a local paper ([115], in Google cache as site is down at the moment). The book is supposedly being made into a film, but that fact alone does not make a book notable. Fences&Windows 01:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete without prejudice. Maybe one day, some day, the film will come out and then in turn the book will receive some kind of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 05:40, 30 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) 00:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Motoaki Furukawa[edit]

    Motoaki Furukawa (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. There are a nice lineup of works here on the "discography" / resume, I must admit. Unfortunately though what I'm not seeing is anything to substantiate a biographical article here; there is nothing in the way of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Initially I was fooled by the "Square Enix Music Online" reference, but as it turns out the website has nothing to do with Square Enix, it is a forum community which relies upon user generated content. JBsupreme (talk) 01:42, 30 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) 00:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    OrganicAthlete[edit]

    OrganicAthlete (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    No footnotes, no establishment of notability, too short, and ought to be wikified. Kayau Odyssey HUCK FINN to the lighthouse BACK FROM EXAMS 01:39, 30 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. Scott Mac (Doc) 17:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Steam titles[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    List of Steam titles (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)

    At one point htis list might have been useful, but now that Steam is so popular it's become an unwieldy and unmaintainable list. EeepEeep (talk) 01:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. This is a catalog. What's another word for catalog listing? Directory? Oh yeah, WP:NOTDIR. JBsupreme (talk) 01:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. So what if it is popular?. Is it wrong to be popular?. The list is maintainable when they are user who maintains. Currently iam maintaining it by finding sources and updating the list. Anyone can maintain it if they wanted to. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - You miss the point. When Steam was a small service this list may have had a purpose by illustrating the types of games available on the service, but now it's a major service with hundreds of games. There is no encyclopedic benefit in listing every single one of them; anyone can just go to Steam and look for themselves. EeepEeep (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. When I look at the list of people who have made constructive edits to this page in the past 500 edits, I see enough variety of editor names and few enough edit wars and reverts to conclude that the page is actively maintained. Esteemed edtior EeepEeep seems to have missed this. As to the question of whether it is "unwieldy", that would be a fair avenue of criticism, but you don't improve unwieldy by deleting the thing - you improve it by forking the page into multiple smaller pages that each address a portion of the information, restructuring its contents, or otherwise refactoring. WP:BETTER. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll also repeat esteemed editor Sabre's comments from the last AfD, which have not been materially changed by six months of time passing. Requiring occasional updating as time goes on doesn't mean its "barely maintainable". Some of the titles might not be notable, but most are - either way that factor is irrelevant. The analogy to a "list of DVDs available through Netflix" misses the mark considerably; its more comparable to the likes of List of Games for Windows titles, List of WiiWare games, List of Xbox Live Arcade games and other similar gaming lists, especially as the service has moved beyond mere distribution. A deficit in sources for release dates and the like is the list's only major drawback, though they are readily available online. -- Sabre (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
    Comment - I'm completely aware of the number of editors. But the question remains, what is the encyclopedic benefit of this list, even if broken down into smaller lists? EeepEeep (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete not really encyclopedic and any really notable content could be mentioned on Steam (content delivery). The individual game articles dont appear to think Steam is notable as it is not mentioned on the few I looked at. MilborneOne (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This is a sales directory. This is different from "List of Games for Windows" in that there, Microsoft has to approve of the title and that it meets certain specifications and requiremetns before it is added to the service; same with List of XBLA games or List of WiiWare games. Here, it's just the business deals between the game owner and Steam; it is a non-distinction. Also, unlik the GfW/XBLA/WiiWare games, there are plenty of other download service companies like D2D and GOG that offer the same products, so there is nothing special about Steam here. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. User:Masem made a convincing argument. This is a list of software sold through a particular distribution channel. Are we going to have a List of iTunes Store songs? As for List of WiiWare games and List of Xbox Live Arcade games, the analogy isn't very good. Valve is not the only (or even a) PC manufacturer, so they don't have anything like the official branding those stores have. But I think those should be deleted as well per WP:NOTCATALOG. Pcap ping 16:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I disagree that Xbox Live list is the similar nature. Again, there is a list of requirements that games have to go through to be put up through Xbox Live, and you just can't add them at will. It is a vetted list of games, not arbitrary as it is with Steam. As only one or two games are released per week on it, they get noticed in gaming journalism. Thus, it is hard pressed to call that list (or the Games for Windows, or the WiiWare games) as directories since there is a very selective measure for what actually gets released on those systems. --MASEM (t) 17:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And to add to this: Steam is not a unique distribution platform - nearly all games on it can be/were purchasable from other vendors. On the other hand, XBLA is a unique platform for most of the games on that list. It is thus comparable to our lists of games for various consoles. --MASEM (t) 17:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree - Steam is a general distribution channel for all types of games. Equivalent articles would be List of games sold at Gamestop or List of games sold on Amazon.com. There's nothing intrinsically common to the elements of this list except that they can be bought at the same place. And it's not even the only place they're sold. EeepEeep (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Oh, I'm referred to as an "esteemed editor". I like that! In any case, having made efforts since the last AfD to cleanup and maintain this article, I eventually gave up with it: trying to keep it up to date was basically a full time job and I had better things to do. No-one really took up the mantle and as a result, what we have here is a bit shit, lets be honest. Count me neutral in the whole affair, regardless of what I said at the last AfD. If this article does stay, perhaps a better approach would be to go with Steam-only games, games specifically tied into the Steamworks system through proper business deals and deliberate programming and development in the same way a game might be linked into XBLA, etc, rather than listing every game regardless of the fact it can be acquired through other means. That sort of list would be far more useful, less directory-like and much more maintainable. -- Sabre (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be a good idea, both WP:NOTDIR and maintenance wise. If you know what to prune to get just the Steam-only titles, you should fork the list while it's still around. Pcap ping 23:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't personally have the time to do that at the moment, and its a process I think would probably be easier from the ground up rather than through pruning, to be honest. -- Sabre (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I can sort-of see the WP:NOTDIR concern here. However, the large majority of items listed have their own WP articles, and this is a proper way of aggregating related items with some annotation (hence not just a cat). LotLE×talk 23:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, I agree with Lulu that the delete side has a strong case. I also think it's true that it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep the list more or less complete. But I still find it a useful article, and I think there should be a little leeway in the rules for list articles that are useful. Some may argue this shouldn't be a factor, but it also appears that this article is quite well traveled (several hundred page hits per day), which makes it different from most AfDs I've seen. Were this article to be deleted, I think quite a lot of people would miss it and the function it serves, and I think Wikipedia would be a little worse off because of it. TastyCakes (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)I also don't really see the difference between this and List of Wii games and List of Xbox 360 games, if those don't classify as catalogs, why does this? Those lists are similarly sprawling and I suspect difficult to maintain, perhaps more so since some games may only be released in certain regions on those platforms. TastyCakes (talk) 06:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is an out of date list based on a single source useful when anyone can go check out the list of titles from Steam's own site? Pcap ping 06:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I can only answer for myself, but I would rather look through a Wikipedia list than the Steam site list for two main reasons: first it's all in one place so you don't have to click through dozens of screens, all taking some time to load because it's such a graphics heavy site. Second, I can click on any of the games and read the Wikipedia article on it which (should be) a more balanced view of it than the marketing spiel Steam will have. I agree though, having the list out of date and incomplete reduces the usefulness, but I think that can be fixed. Regardless, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think "it's available elsewhere on the internet" is a valid reason for deleting an article. Anyway, I'm not too choked up about this one, like I said you guys have some good points, I just don't think Wikipedia benefits from deleting this article. TastyCakes (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I'm not convinced this is under WP:NOTDIR. Although the above 'fix' would to have the list only include games that are only (or primarily) purchased through steam, which seams like a more maintainable list. MrMacMan Talk 07:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There are many other online shops similar to steam, and indeed it got much more popular and features probably thousands of titles in the future. Whats next, List of titles sold at walmarkt? GBK2010 (talk) 08:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - This is not like "List of games published by X"; Steam is a distribution method, and a rapidly expanding one. It wont be long before it is comparable to something like "List of games available for sale in [insert high street retailer]", or "List of games distributed on CD-ROM". Any titles that are noteworthy because they have been distributed via Steam should be mentioned at Steam (content delivery) with an appropriate citation. Marasmusine (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Pretty much per Marasmusine, Steam is churning out far too many games every year to maintain a list on Wikipedia which is accurate. The only source relates to the Steam website. If one wishes to find information about a game, they can look there for the name and then look up the specific article on Wikipedia should they so wish. A huge list of titles is not going to be of benefit to anyone. We are not a directory of information, we are an encyclopaedia. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  16:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per Lulu and TastyCakes. yes, I can see that WP:NOTDIR might apply, but as has also been mentioned, this is very similar to pages like List of Xbox 360 games. If the eventual outcome of this discussion is deletion, then a category for games sold via Steam should be created in it's place. RWJP (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It's completely unusable. If anyone wants to find a list of games available they can go to steam's website Mike409 (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Jimmy Weckl[edit]

    Jimmy Weckl (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, appears to be yet another in a large series of non-notable and poorly sourced biographies related to Bemani games. JBsupreme (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete There is no significant published secondary source material. The single entry in OverClocked ReMix is not significant. I would suggest Speedy Delete. --Bejnar (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete yet another unsourced, unmaintained blp that doesn't even assert notability. I proded earlier; an editor deprodded yet couldn't demonstratre notability or source the article either.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:52, 31 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. JForget 01:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Grand Theft Auto media[edit]

    List of Grand Theft Auto media (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. This page just duplicates info already in Grand Theft Auto (series). EeepEeep (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep: Yes it might have duplicate entries. The point of list is to put all the information in to one page. Here is a FA list for an example. I also believe there is no deadline. --SkyWalker (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - 1. the information is already on one page: Grand Theft Auto (series). 2. See WP:OTHERSTUFF. Though I'd argue that List of Metal Gear media should be deleted as well. 3. How is WP:DEADLINE relevant? EeepEeep (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Has i said the point of having the list is to have all the information into one article. The article Grand Theft Auto (series) needs improvements and once that is done most of the information such has "Summary of Games" would get deleted. Sure go ahead and delete the Metal Gear media and Category:Video game lists by franchise.--SkyWalker (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Why would the list of games be removed from Grand Theft Auto (series)? No one has suggested that. I would say many of the articles in Category:Video game lists by franchise could be deleted, but many are not in the same situation as this one: they don't refer to a specific game series, or the game series doesn't have a main article, or the list of games is so long it would make the main article too long if included, etc. It's very problematic to make generalizations; every article needs to be evaluated separately. And my evaluation of this article is that it should be deleted. Your opinion differs; we'll just have to see how the discussion pans out. EeepEeep (talk) 07:45, 30 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) 00:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Derrick Operating System[edit]

    Derrick Operating System (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I can't find significant independent coverage for this software. Pcap ping 01:32, 30 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) 00:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Choi Dae Hyun[edit]

    Choi Dae Hyun (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)

    Failed to meet WP:Notability and WP:V. Even any single Korean source can not be found. Caspian blue 00:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Weak Delete By listing the model's endorsements does make an assertion of notability IMO. However since the article is unsourced I lean towards deleting this article. RadManCF (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Based on the style of the article, I suspect that the original source is here [117] somewhere. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I cross-linked to the Korean language wikipedia, which has less info. Edit history shows that all of the content was created by one editor who only created that one page.
    • Delete No reliable sources --Rirunmot 01:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Delete Unsourced BLP without much significant coverage.  fetchcomms☛ 01:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete. Unsourced article which violates WP:BLP policy. Enough is enough. JBsupreme (talk) 20:41, 30 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.
    More