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

The result was Speedy delete as A7  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 13:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add a new profile[edit]

Add a new profile (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)

Bad name, no importance. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but note: this AfD shouldn't have existed. The page is clearly an accident (G6) and/or a non-notable band (A7). I have tagged the page with both of those. — Timneu22 · talk 12:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project Kalpana[edit]

Project Kalpana (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)

(PROD removed) Notable? All I can find is the same video popping up on sporadic websites. Googlehits 300. No independent coverage (at least not in English) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:Non-notable. At present they have just a facebook group and an under-construction site and good intentions. Doesn't seem like they have done anything yet so there arent any third-party sources. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, definitely a very worthy cause, but nothing here to indicate notability yet, unfortunately. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete as non notable Jimzah the Jimmy (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete They seem to have a noble cause for the betterment for the farmers. They have a active facebook page and a updated website. hope to see some changes over here too. Rachit Taneja (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Araqeeb[edit]

Al-Araqeeb (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 mean WP:GNG and notability standards. I'd say smells a lot like recentism. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, all villages are notable. What happened to this village and how it was destroyed makes it extra notable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment* For starters, the village is Kafr al-Arakib, not simply Al-Araqeeb. Second, there are thousand of similar structures all throughout the Negav that are built on state-owned land. Claims that the "village" existed prior to the founding of Israel is unsubstantiated. Dozens of structures are demolished every year and this is just another example - hardly deserving of an article. There is simply not enough to justify an article - perhaps a move to Israeli Arabs or Negav would be more appropriate. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep HupHollandHup (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As stated above, verifiable settlements are considered notable, and this one was part of a notable incident and has plenty of coverage too. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It wasn't notable until it was demolished. And the owners did not describe it as a settlement. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As a village, it was notable before it was demolished and even more so as a historical village. I've never seen a population center, currently existing or not, get deleted.--Oakshade (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - There are more than 10,000 unrecognized bediun camps throughout the Negav, most much larger than this one. Shall I get on making articles for each one? Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources give population figures of 200–300 for this village. If there more than 10,000 such villages, most much larger than this one, then they have a total population of "more than much more" than 2–3 million. Are you seriously making such a claim? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Plenty of media coverage, substantially more than many other villages considered notable. Follow the sources. — goethean ॐ 03:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep obviously per multiple sources, note also this is the second time the village has been destroyed. Misarxist (talk) 10:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, villages are notable if verifiable. This one is verifiable and so it is notable. nableezy - 21:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Despite some POV concerns it is notable as a populated place and along with significant coverage.Cptnono (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously meets notability guidelines due to extensive coverage in the Israeli and international press. And it is simply false that there are "10,000" locations like this. There are at most around a hundred of this size. Zero^talk 14:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. There is no precedent for such an article. Unrecognized Bedouin villages in Israel should be created and this material merged into that, as with Democracy Village. There was not "extensive" coverage about this! The flotilla had "extensive" coverage. The "Democracy Village" opposite the British Parliament is far, far more notable. There were pages devoted to it in the Evening Standard, and it's a redirect. Al-Araqeeb is just another everyday news item. Governments all over the world are dismantling villages against their inhabitants wishes and those villages do not warrant their own page. As for the argument that wiki is a gazetteer, it is common practice that small villages are actually redirected to more encompassing regional pages, e.g: Amnaş and Syrian towns and villages depopulated in the Arab-Israeli conflict. We would not consider making creating Chanonry travellers' camp just because bulldozers moved in to demolish the site. Travellers' camp site is cleared Chesdovi (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you show me Democracy Village's wheat fields and olive groves? Neither side of the related ownership dispute deny that this farming village existed since 1999. Comparing it to a camp of protesters that existed for all of three months in the shadow of Big Ben seems rather blithe. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wheat fields and olive groves?!" Parliament Sq. is not just any odd patch of open space. It is the most prominent in the country. A court case that cost tens of tousangs of pounds at the cost of the taxpayer and much debate within the Houses of Parliament. Was in the news for 3 months. Al-Araqeeb - a village that has existed for 10 years out of a total of 10,000 years of human habitiaion. Was in the news for one day. Yup. That really qualifies it. What about the 300 odd villages on the depopulated Syrian towns and villages page. Let's make a page for each of those. Chesdovi (talk) 09:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Araqueeb was mentioned in a book published in 2005. And I still haven't gone back and looked up all the alternate spellings which have come to light since this AfD, submitted all of 8 hours after this article was created, began. The difference to the Syrian villages in the Golan Heights is that they were all abandoned quickly in the light of two monolithic events. I would fully support a study toward splitting the existing article in twain, but you are still comparing apples to oranges. Per WP:PAPER, here we have the sourcing at hand, and, as good Wikipedians, we write the article as we can. -- Kendrick7^talk 04:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case I will proceed to create Chanonry travellers' camp. Chesdovi (talk) 09:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of getting you started. -- Kendrick7^talk 18:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a real place, although we should insist on more reliable sources and a less slanted article than what currently exists. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

What would be the reliable sources you "insist" on? It sure is a real place, but does that fact warrant its own page? As I mentioned above, usually small villages are merged into more encopassing pages. Surely you would agree this be merged to a more suitable page? Chesdovi (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, obviously notable, and the demolition is multi-sourced. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 18:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The demolition of Chanonry travellers' camp is also sourced? Chesdovi (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The houses demolished in Al-Araqueeb were not camping trailers. - TwoHorned _{User_talk:TwoHorned} 21:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentOn the Israeli WP, Israeli outposts (mostly small isolated Jewish populated places) are all merged into one article, while here in English WP, separate articles are tolerated for each point that can be sourced. While the Israeli outposts only number in the few dozen at most, in contrast, the Bedouin ones exist exponentially. --Shuki (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Unrecognized Bedouin villages in Israel. Most of the material applies to dozens of unrecognized Bedouin settlements. It should be grouped into a single article that can be monitored for the tendency this area has to generate POV pushing and unreliable information.AMuseo (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, almost every word on this page is specific to this particular location. Zero^talk 03:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undocumented (documentary)[edit]

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

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

Non-notable film project lacking GHIts and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM ttonyb (talk) 22:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the one-sentence stub. Let the author expand and source it in a sandbox before any reconsideration for return to mainspace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Rogers (writer)[edit]

Tim Rogers (writer) (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)

Nominating on the request of an IP editor. From talk page This bio has been deleted before. It appears to be an autobiography of a writer of no particular notability. His band is unknown and plays at "pay for play" bars. The references are all to the blogs or web site that he has contributed to. The author has only contributed to this page. 203.216.0.150. I'm neutral at this time. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: no coverage in RS, fails WP:BIO. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, appears in at least three outside sources [1] [2] [3] and there's really nothing to support the claim that the article is a conflict of interest since it clearly includes criticisms of his work. The previous AFD was in 2006, so it stands to reason that he's gained a little more notability since then. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENTThe Guardian blog is tangential and somethingawful and gamesetwatch don't meet RS. Honestly if that's the best you can do I'm tempted to tag this argument as supporting deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - Actually, Game Set Watch is a reliable source, as noted here --Teancum (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete haven't done a thorough search yet, but the three sources up above w/ the possible exception of the guardian aren't suitable for wikipedia (something awful? c'mon). Given that this is a BLP and devotes an inordinate amount of time to how much he apparently sucks, we should be quite a bit more strict with regard to sourcing. I'll be back w/ a more solid statement after a search. Protonk (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Axem Titanium (talk) 00:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing notable about him. Looks like an autobiography to me even with the sucks comments. There are lots of writers with a similar amount of notability, and there are thousands of independent bands of no particular note. Brettr (talk) 06:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Self-fellatory autobiography of a non-notable blog writer. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 11:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, getting called out by Zack Parsons is not in itself a claim to notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete though I consider GameSetWatch borderline reliable as, with Gamasutra, falls under the same umbrella of Game Developer magazine. But there has to be other stuff that's (more) reliable out there in order for me to be comfortable with it. –MuZemike 02:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; sources are not reliable enough to pass WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EasyLicenser License Manager[edit]

EasyLicenser License Manager (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 product. No references given, and I have been unable to find anything that would indicate notability. Haakon (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned about User:Dominicpb, who may be Dominic Haigh, the company's VP of Business Development, and his contributions, which seem to include a couple other created pages. Definite delete for the articles, though. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 22:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article has no references that show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I can find no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:15, 31 July 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. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orion Network Licensing Platform[edit]

Orion Network Licensing Platform (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 product. No references given, and I have been unable to find anything that would indicate notability. Haakon (talk) 21:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are no references provided that indicate notability. Miami33139 (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which remains not a reason for deletion. Please read WP:DEL. Hobit (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm only finding PR wire coverage and the like, nothing independent of the vendor. Hobit (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dr. Dobb's Journal article provides more than trivial coverage, but far from in-depth. If someone can find one good article on the topic I'd be inclined to say this could be enough for "multiple" but it's not enough by itself in any way. Hobit (talk) 03:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Dr Dobb's Journal article does not provide more than trivial coverage to this product. It provide a shorter overview of the greater area this software operates in. It provides trivial mention of this software, along with 14 others. Miami33139 (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • While short, I'd say the coverage is pretty detailed. As I said I'd consider it more than in-passing or trivial, but less than detailed. It reads
        • "Orion offers automatic, secure, connected or disconnected software activation for trial, perpetual, subscription, usage-based, upgrade feature and/or weighted licensing. It enables automatic node-locking of selected features with "Fuzzy Fingerprinting," has an automated, browser-based self-service for offline activation and integrated software asset reports. Java-based server runs on all Java-capable platforms. The buzz: Orion provides a healthy range of flexibility and client language support, as it can be engineered for use as an Internet-based Product Activation, License Key Distribution or Floating License Server and can interact with any networking-capable languages, including C/C++, C#, Java, Visual Basic and VB.NET. Starts at $15,000"
          • Four sentences in a comparison chart is trivial coverage. Miami33139 (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your opinion was pretty plain. I'm saying I disagree. Turns out we both don't think much of the source or of the notability of the subject. We are just disagreeing if the word "trivial" describes the source... Hobit (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I can't find any coverage that would indicate widespread interest or notability for this product. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Dr. Dobb's Journal (cited in the External Sources) is a reputable journal. Users of this product include the US Navy, FICO, QLogic and Mercury Computer Systems per the site. Both indicate notability 69.181.194.187 (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dr Dobb's Journal has list of 14 vendors and includes Orion. That is extreme trivial. $15,000 software has big names in list of users because $15,000 is big money for software. Price is not indicative of notability. Miami33139 (talk) 04:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that charging a price is not an indication of notability. However, the fact that these reputable companies have paid this price (and presumably higher) is significant. 69.181.194.187 (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the lack of nontrivial coverage in reliable sources. The coverage in Dr. Dobb's Journal is not enough, in my opinion, to allow Orion Network Licensing Platform to pass Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted as a copvio Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albanian Institute of Oil and Gas[edit]

Albanian Institute of Oil and Gas (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 company doesn't demonstrate any significant notability, and what's more, the product sounds like it needs a "close paraphrase" tag. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 21:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've found it to be a G12-able copyvio of [4]. The creator's name is Laert, which together with the URL implies a conflict of interest. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 22:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 31 July 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 a7, no indication of notability; g11 advertising. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Survivor Foundation (LSF)[edit]

Lone Survivor Foundation (LSF) (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)

Recently set up charity, but no evidence of notability. Tone of writing is entirely promotional, and written from the subject's point of view - "our patriots", "we provide" etc. Several statements based on the organisations expectations such as "will be unique" and "will partner with". Not suitable for an encyclopedia. Dmol (talk) 21:17, 30 July 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 Grease Trucks. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fat Sandwich[edit]

Fat Sandwich (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 article, questionably notable. I attempted a merge to Grease Trucks, apparently the parent article, as another user had suggested, but was reverted. Shimeru 20:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't attempt to merge it. You blanked it and redirected it to Grease Trucks without moving any information (nor discussion that I saw). A redirect isn't the same as a merger.Njsustain (talk) 21:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Grease Trucks, which are apparently the venue where these sandwichs are sold at Rutgers University. Having a separate article with unreferenced details of who thought up each sandwich and what is on each one seems spammy, even if the sandwiches do not include Spam along with a burger, fries, chicken fingers, and marinara sauce. Edison (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why on earth is it spammy to list the ingredients? Are you going to propose the Club Sandwich article for deletion because they list the ingredients there? Njsustain (talk) 10:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Grease Trucks. This isn't the place to discuss whether the content of the article is properly sourced. Merge it now, and pick at the article later. These sandwiches have had undeniable national (American) coverage and so is more notable than Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant whose deletion is unlikely as no consensus is being reached on that New Brunswick establishment. I'm going to say this out loud: People think Daryl Wine Bar is notable because it is an expensive place. That the Fat Sandwiches are only $6 do not change the fact that they have had both local and NATIONAL coverage in RS. Njsustain (talk) 21:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, this is exactly the place to discuss whether the content of the article is properly sourced. If they've had significant national coverage as the primary topic in reliable sources (which the trucks have had), please produce the sources. And also, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Shimeru 00:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since I suggested the merger, why don't you look on the Grease Truck article website. The topic has had coverage in USA Today and on the Food Network as the subject of an episode of "Man vs. Food"; one was voted Maxim Magazine's best sandwich, and they have had coverage in local newspapers. This exceeds notability requirements. Njsustain (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I suggested, and performed, the merge. You undid it, insisted on an AfD if any change was to be made, and now have apparently decided that my initial editorial decision was correct after all. Which rather confuses me, really; I don't see what the point of all this is if you've favored a merge all along. But so it goes. Shimeru 18:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, you did no such thing. You did not merge anything. Merge means "combine." What you did is blank the article, and redirect it to "Grease Trucks". That isn't combining, that's just deleting one thing. I have no objection to an actual merger, but do object to a pretend merger, which is what you performed. (And so it goes.) Njsustain (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then why not just say so, instead of demanding an AfD? For the record, all of the sourced information was already present in the other article, leaving nothing to "combine". Shimeru 21:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Demanding an AfD?? Please. What on earth are you talking about? Further, just because all the information you saw fit to include was in the other article doesn't mean it was good style to simply blank the article without any discussion. Njsustain (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm talking about the summary you used in this edit, which demanded a discussion about deleting the article (which was rather puzzling since that hadn't been my goal in the first place, but I assumed that you were implying that, since a merge/redirect was "inappropriate", you wished to see the article either kept separate or deleted). Since you don't appear to actually disagree, there is no need for an AfD -- you could have simply used the page history to merge whatever it is you feel I neglected into the target article. I fully encourage you to do so now. See comment below. Shimeru 02:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Grease Trucks- it's really obvious this needs to be merged, since it has no independent sources. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd like to withdraw the nomination, since there appears to be agreement that a merge and redirect should be implemented. Shimeru 02:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll work on the Grease Trucks article when I get a chance. In the mean time, if this article is blanked/redirected, please redirect any links to Fat Sandwiches to the Grease Trucks article, rather than simply removing the links, or simply leave them to redirect... it's not the worst thing in the world.Njsustain (talk) 10:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I think the bulk of the merger is done. Anyone interested, please help iron it out at Grease Trucks. Njsustain (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it looks like someone has since added to the Fat Sandwich article during (and due to) this debate, so there is also some info about the unhealthiness and possibly some other references. If someone else could please add that in before the Fat Sandwiches article is blanked and redirected that would be swell. Njsustain (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC) Added: Well, I worked on it some more. It actually looks not half bad now, IMHO. I'll leave it to others to redirect Fat Sandwiches to "Grease Trucks." Njsustain (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Hebner[edit]

Dennis Hebner (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 article fails notability requirements. The subject is a former minor league baseball player whose career consisted of 43 games played in 1972-73. NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doesn't meet WP:BASE/N, espicially the sixth bulletin. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 22:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Pittsburgh Pirates minor league players. That's what these pages were established for. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Minor league player articles are for current minor leaguers.. This guy played 30 years ago. Spanneraol (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on the page to indicate that it is only for current players. It only indicates that it is for Pittsburgh Pirates minor league players and that is what he was. Kinston eagle (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly... do you really want that page to include everyone who played for five minutes on a rookie ball team? It's for current minor league prospects, if you want to add some clarification go ahead. Spanneraol (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to add clarification. You are the one who seems to want to limit the scope of the article. I'm just trying to reach a compromise to make the creator of the article as well as the deletion nominator happy. The article's stated purpose is for Pittsburgh Pirates minor league players and that is what he was. I don't appreciate you trying to belittle my honest opinion. Kinston eagle (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry.. I assumed you weren't being serious. Spanneraol (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - doesn't meet any of the Wikipedia notability criteria. BRMo (talk) 03:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A handful of games in rookie ball certainly doesnt make him notable. Spanneraol (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even though those games were "boss"? :P --Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per everyone else --Muboshgu (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"My argument of keeping my page is that I create this page for one reason to practice my page making skills, but also this page is doing no harm. I deleted the "boss" which was un needed but the page is all true facts and I can not see a valid reason for deletion.If you would like to contact me on the matter feel free to email me Hebner211@gmail.com. And by the way the guy your all talking about is my dad so I know what im talking about and what is on the page is all 100% true. (This is the Creator of the page {TrytoBall} Im still a little new to the Wikipedia Page Making) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trytoball (talk • contribs) 02:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about if the information is true or not but if the subject is notable enough to have a wikipedia page. We dont think he is.. Though if you are writing a page about your dad then you suffer from a conflict of interest.. another reason for deletion. Spanneraol (talk) 02:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Conflict of Interest" What does that change? And another question, I want to know what harm this does. The Information is true, I've seen more irrelevant pages than this and I can't think of a valid reason for this page to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trytoball (talk • contribs) 02:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is questioning whether or not the information is factual. This article doesn't meet WP:GNG. As for practicing your editing, I suggest you use your sandbox. You can make as long a biography of your father there as you please. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COI for the wikipedia policy about editing articles that you have a personal connection with. Spanneraol (talk) 02:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• " Ok Well I didnt think a small article of my father would cause so much trouble between a bunch of guys that can't let a page that (which i have still not been told how it is) is doing no harm. I would also like to say to Spanneraol that yes he only play 2 seasons (not "5 minutes" which is what you said he played for) but i would guess that is 2 seasons more than you have ever played in any pro sport. MHebner (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no wikipedia article about me either.. So? Spanneraol (talk) 02:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is my dad is mentioned in my uncles and I thought it would be cool if my dad had one as well. And what i meant by that Spanneraol your making it sound like playing playing farm ball is not a big deal but I don't think you have an ounce of the talent my dad had. My Point is yes this article isn't that important at all but what harm is it doing having this article up. MHebner (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Richie Hebner, an article about the subject's brother, where a small amount of material about him would seem to be appropriate. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reliable source that verifies he was Richie's brother? I wouldn't support a merge if it's based on unverified information. BRMo (talk) 04:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect I'm sorry, but Dennis Hebner does not meet the general notability guidelines of this site. I am in favor of his name and professional career receiving a brief mention in Richie Hebner. A standalone article is not needed here. Vodello (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• If merging was done instead of deleting I would really appreciate it. MHebner (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jalan Duta Interchange (DUKE)[edit]

Jalan Duta Interchange (DUKE) (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)

Procedural nomination. Article was prodded but ineligible for prod due to previous deletion via prod. Original rationale by Nuttah (talk · contribs) was "Non notable road junction."

For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as there is no indication of notability, unfortunately A7 can't be applied for roads. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 23:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles (talk) 00:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Group inc.[edit]

Ocean Group inc. (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 article is written like an advertisement, lacks a neutral point of view and is created an mainly written by a user named Groupe Ocean who appears to be affiliated with the company. It mainly uses sources from the groups official website which covers large parts of the article. The group as such might be notable but the article has multiple issues and it might be difficult to find enough third party sources. Due to those issues I guess it's best to delete this article. DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No evidence of notability. Only refs are two trade related websites. Tone of article is entirely promotional.--Dmol (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Starts off as advertising: offers a wide range of integrated marine services. No indication that this business belongs in a history book. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is advertising, not an encyclopedia article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per remaining notability and promotion concerns. Materialscientist (talk) 04:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HomeFinder Channel 100[edit]

HomeFinder Channel 100 (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 TV / web real estate service. Blatant advertising in my view. Do the references establish notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am truly not stupid, but I really don't understand.

The rules here seem almost too complex for a new member to join in.

At my first attempt, I was deleted after it was said that we lacked Notability and were potentially spamming.

In response, I re-wrote the article, simplifying, and shared several links to reliable independent news reports or web sites demonstrating recognition. That seems to have won some reprieve from the speedy deletion that welcomed my first effort.

Now it seems that we are to be deleted just because we are a company or an organization.

However, I note that other organizations are included in wikipedia - even the parent company / owner (Block Communications) of this remarkable venture, and both of the major divisions of that organization. See Block Communications, Buckeye CableSystem, Toledo Blade.

I realize that articles are not to be 'ads'

There is very little detail here about our service, no prices, no solicitation. Also note, we have no ability to provide service outside our regional footprint, so this article really cannot function as an advertisement.

Also Note: I realize that articles are not to be 'local'

But every historical event has a locality, or a local beginning.

My main interest is in recording the invention of new technologies, Crediting the company that invented the technology, and logging historical developments regarding the evolution of the invention.

IPTV Pioneer (talk) 21:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC) — IPTV Pioneer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• The above seems to have a significant conflict of interest ("our service"). Just because some of your parent company's other holdings are notable doesn't mean you are. What's more, the tone is awfully blatant advertising. Delete. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 21:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Blatant advertising, no evidence of notability.--Dmol (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete To the creator: Articles are supposed to be 'about' not 'by'. You have just confirmed a conflict of interest WP:COI. No, the article is not proposed for deletion because it is a company or organisation. It is because someone felt it was advertising for a business or service. I agree, and consider it to be a non-notable business or service to boot. There are no references to establish notability, and the wording screams (OK, a quieter scream than some I've seen - or do I mean heard?) 'this is the message we want you to hear about us'. Every event has a beginning - but not necessarily an article. This is an encyclopaedia, where things of note are recorded and explained. I'm afraid your service hasn't quite got there yet. Some day, when you can demonstrate notability, come back. Probably someone else will have created the article by then... Peridon (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really cannot believe a worldwide FIRST is not notable. Is there nothing I can do to satisfy your editorial concerns and still provide an entry? Do you know how HUGE will be the long term effect of platform convergence between television and the internet? Did Anybody see the links I posted to industry citations, news reports by companies you have already deemed notable? They were in an earlier version of this article. I left them in, but now I don't know where they went?

72.241.22.144 (talk) 03:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC) — 72.241.22.144 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• How do you know how huge it will be? And what is a worldwide first? To call this article blatant advertisting would be an understatement (by the way, typing in bold text doesn't make your point stronger). Delete. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Advertising. I own a shoe store and that shouldn't be written up for Wikipedia either. Carrite (talk) 14:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Differentiating contributors in discussion threads by using bold or colored type face is a common practice in many online discussion forums, No? Typing section heads in bold text is a common way to give structure to an article - even here at Wikipedia - No?

2) How do I know it will be huge? Because Televisions are in every home, and computers in almost every home. Television manufacturers are already investing huge sums of money in creating IP ready TV's (similar to the advance investment they made in HD for many years before that took off. Computer manufacturers are spending huge sums of money to create computers that play video. A growing consumer trend is that the personal computer is becoming the primary entertainment or television screen. IPTV is a tremendously valuable technology and will some day enrich and change your life almost as much as the Computer, Internet or Cell Phone has changed the life of anybody who grew up before we had them. Asking if this will be huge is like asking, in 1980, regarding the Internet, "How do you know the internet will be huge?" Even better, the computer mouse was invented in about 1960 but did not really go anywhere until XEROX added one to an early office computer. Still it was relatively unknown until Apple added one to it's early computer. Now, nearly every home in America has at least one mouse. It is widely predicted that most new Televisions will be able to play video from internet sources within the next 5 years.

3) Respectfully, this is not a shoe store. A shoe store is a commodity. There are shoe stores in every city. HomeFinder Channel 100 is a one of a kind service at the forefront of the next wave of consumer media delivery (IPTV).

Would something like this work better? :

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

HomeFinder Channel 100 is a 24-hour Digital Cable Television Channel and companion web site by Buckeye CableSystem, of Toledo Ohio. Buckeye CableSystem a cable company located in Toledo, Ohio and serves Northwest Ohio and parts of Southeast Michigan. Buckeye CableSystem is a full service cable company including TV, broadband, commercial, and home telephone services. It is owned by Block Communications, alongside The Blade newspaper.

PIONEERING IN PLATFORM CONVERGENCE or WEB ENABLED TELEVISION PRODUCTION HomeFinder Channel 100 creates television and web video from internet based assets with a minimum of human intervention. It is the first locally produced, dedicated real estate channel and web site of this type in the world. Other cable television companies have previously offered similar programming as a Video On Demand service, or have carried real estate programming produced elsewhere. The process invented at HomeFinder Channel 100 is a television production system that used online data and images to simultaneously produce video for both a 24-our television channel and a web site focused on real estate for sale. The process dramatically reduces the studio time needed, and thus the cost of producing and delivering video in the form of television programs or ads. A staff of two produces, sells, and schedules the channel. Studio time required is only 1-2 minutes per :30 spot. This breakthrough makes television production and television advertising available to market sectors, such as Real Estate, that were previously unable to afford it.

The process developed stands as an early stage milestone along the route to the inevitable convergence of Television and Internet Media platforms. Other early stage Internet Protocol Television Video (IPTV) providers included Netflix, Hulu, and Youtube - which serve traditional entertainment audiences as a replacement for the video store and movie theater. Both market sectors now struggling and on the verge of regressing toward extinction.

Many cable television companies also provide internet service via cable modem connections. With capabilities in both television and internet technology, many are also now exploring IPTV. IPTV can deliver web based content to the web connected television. IPTV program delivery costs less than traditional TV delivery. It is said of this technology that it may some day eliminate the concept of "channels" as we know them. The range of multimedia or video programming available to a consumer via IPTV can be as limitless as the number of web pages on the World Wide Web. The former barriers to entry to become a television network or broadcast producer are being removed. The advent of IPTV is redefining what it means to be a media producer or broadcaster in the same way that Blogspot.com once re-invented what it means to be an author, or publisher, and Wikipedia re-invented what it means to be an encyclopedia.

HISTORY AND SIGNIFICANT MILESTONES HomeFinder Channel 100 Was Founded in October of 2007. Launch Promotion began in earnest in March of 2008. The first order was taken on March 31, 2008. The television channel launched on April 17, 2008. By 2009, the television ads were converted to web video and placed on the homefinder100.com real estate search engine. In 2010, the television ads were syndicated to Youtube. In another world-wide first, a proprietary "CURB SEARCH" service was introduced in June of 2010 to deliver real estate search and television quality video to smart phones and mobile devices such as the iPhone, iPod Touch, BlackBerry phones and phones using the Android (operating system).

As to the Notability of this work: Web Links From Reliable Sources show HomeFinder Channel 100 has received media attention and industry support:

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvg/story?section=news/local&id=6075837 http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080411/BUSINESS05/977224736 http://www.419toledorealestate.com/419-toledo-real-estate http://www.sulphurspringsrealty.com/quickfacts.php http://www.worldmarketmedia.com/1893/section.aspx/1470732/buckeye-cablesystemr-launches-new-sunday-morning-real-estate-show-and-curb-searchtm-mobile-web-site http://www.419toledorealestate.com/toledo-real-estate-toledo-homes-for-sale-toledo-homes-toledo-houses-toledo-realtor/toledo-real-estate-gets-mobile

IPTV Pioneer (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry; what aren't you understanding here? Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete: Pure advertisment, nothing more. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully: What is it you think is being sold? Which words strike you as a sales ploy? I ask these questions because in the Sales world that I live in, this would be a horrible sales pitch. I sell all day long, for a living. Selling involves need exploration, features descriptions, prices, calls to action, requests for communication in the event of questions, contact information, how to order instructions, etc. I don't mean to be dense, but considering where I come from in the sales world.... this is not even close to selling. It is merely describing a service in extremely general terms.

MAJOR RE-WRITE PERFORMED I have updated the page with a major re-write version that I hope you find more acceptable.

This is honest appeal for guidance from wikipedia experts. While I am expert in other practices, I obviously have a lot to learn about Wikipedia.

I want to write an appropriate article. I am not trying to advertise. We do plenty of that already, elsewhere. Innovations in Internet, Television and the emerging IPTV field seem to deserves a place in history. I am trying to make your encyclopedia more complete. Being ridiculed is not helping me learn. Please help me identify and eliminate the troubling parts of this article instead of merely criticizing. Thank you.

IPTV Pioneer (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly this is simply a PR blitz by a startup real estate website/cable business. Notability has not been established. Heck, this is so new that the mere success of this particular venture has not even been established. Cable television real estate channels are nothing new. I went through the "references" and find they are simply PR announcements that a new business is forming in Toledo. One simply lists the website with no additional information provided. The business simply lacks notability.
  Wikipedia is not a public relations tool to amp up your business profile. And AfD is not the place for tutoring individuals in how to write appropriate articles. My advice is to take a step back, read everything Wikipedia provides pertaining to the Manual of Style, policies, and guidelines. If you focus on building the business to be successful, you won't have to worry about writing an article on Wikipedia. If your business becomes successful and notable, I'm sure someone else will more than likely come along and create it for you. Cindamuse (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non notable coi promotion.Teapotgeorge^Talk 18:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To whom may I report poorly considered, rude, or offensive remarks made by a reviewer?

I would like to report user Cindamuse for poor judgment shown by attacking claims that were never made, for rudeness, and for committing the offense of a personal attack.

To the first issue: (poor judgment) Cindamuse writes, "Clearly this is simply a PR blitz by a startup real estate website/cable business"

• I should think Wikipedia wants it's reviewers to be able to read and write before allowing them to criticize or recommend deletion of articles, that Wikipedia would want it's reviewers to know the criteria for deletion and the criteria for notability, and that Wikipedia would want reviewers to be knowledgeable on topics that they present as cause for deletion or proof of lack of notability. However, Cindamuse apparently cannot read Wikipedia criteria for notability, cannot be bothered to actually read the PR articles being criticized, and apparently knows very little about PR in the first place.

This is shown when Cindamuse writes the following: "Clearly this is simply a PR blitz by a startup real estate website/cable business" and "Notability has not been established."

• It should be noted that having been the beneficiary of a PR Blitz is NOT a Wikipedia criteria for deletion. Further, having achieved the kind of PR being ridiculed by Cindamuse actually helps establish notability. Coverage by reliable sources indicate credibility and notability. Showing very poor logic, Cindamuse writes that the startup was notable enough to garner PR coverage and then says that PR coverage does not establish notability. I have read Wikipedia's criteria for notability and PR coverage would CLEARLY seem to qualify.

Cindamuse writes, "I went through the "references" and find they are simply PR announcements that a new business is forming in Toledo."

• Cindamuse seems to feel qualified to write about and CRITICIZE the quality of our PR Blitz even though the comments clearly indicate the references were not read nor understood, and that Cindamuse does not understand PR. This statement that our references are simply about a new business forming is CATEGORICALLY FALSE. It is true that some of the links provided regarding notability resulted from an actual PR Blitz. But the topic is not a new business. Two of the references provided are about an EXISTING COMPANY launching a new Cable Television Channel and web site. Two more references are about additional, NOTABLE accomplishments that took place TWO YEARS AFTER startup. This means the channel was NOTABLE when it started, and continues to be NOTABLE over 2 years later.

Also, it should be fairly obvious to anybody qualified to write about the quality of a PR Blitz that this Wikipedia article is not a PR Blitz in the first place. Again, Cindamuse is not a PR expert, but claims to be qualified to condemn this article as a PR Blitz. That the company knows how to generate a PR blitz is not in question. You may also Google HomeFinder Channel 100 to find even more demonstration of PR blitzes. Further PR blitzes can be generated any time the Company wishes. Also, it should be clear to anyone who claims to recognize a PR Blitz that a PR blitz would only be useful if targeted at an audience who is capable of buying the company or product. HomeFinder Channel 100 sells nothing that can be sold to the whole World - therefore this is not a PR Blitz. What is relevant for publication to the whole world are notable industry firsts - especially ones that involve developing technologies and those that improve people's lives by improving access to mass media.

Cindamuse continues to show poor judgment regarding Wikipedia criteria for deletion when writing, "Heck, this is so new that the mere success of this particular venture has not even been established".

• If we indulge Cindamuse, then one might think that being unsucessful was a Wikipedial criteria for deletion? But look - there are articles about the Ford Edsel, and about the Delorean Motors. So what is the point of this observation?

Immediately after writing that we are "too new" Cindamuse states that we are not new at all when wrtiing, "Cable television real estate channels are nothing new".

• It seems that we are both "too new" and "nothing new" at the same time. This clearly implies that HomeFinder Channel 100 is not notable because it is not new. This implies a business type must be new to be notable. However, this is NOT a Wikipedia criteria for notability. I might agree that there is nothing new about a cable real estate channel (in and of itself), however, the statement was NEVER made that HomeFinder Channel 100 is notable simply BECAUSE it is a cable television real estate channel. It is listed as a cable television real estate channel because this is A PERTINENT FACT relevant to a larger story. Why attack a fact? If you are going to attack things because they are not new, then why don't we delete every article submitted in the last century about every newspaper? Why not delete every article submitted in the last quarter century about a cable news network, or cable television channel? Obviously there is nothing new about a newspaper, or about a specific newspaper such as The Blade (newspaper). Obviously there is nothing new about Cable Television or a specific Cable Television Company such as Buckeye CableSystem. If any of these are notable enough for articles, it is because of the historical facts of their very existence, as well as because of what they have done, especially any innovations accomplished - but NOT because of what they are. In the same way HomeFinder Channel 100 was not said to be notable BECAUSE it was a real estate channel. However, it IS NOTABLE as cable television real estate channel that does things other cable television real estate channels have never done. It is notable enough that reliable and unrelated 3rd parties have covered the developments that make HomeFinder Channel 100 the first cable television real estate channel to do the things it has done. It is notable that this channel is combining old technologies such as cable television, with new technologies including web video and mobile video, to serve certain consumers (home sellers and buyers make up over half the population of the USA) in ways that have NEVER been done before.

Cindamuse continues to add insult and rudeness when writing, "Wikipedia is not a public relations tool to amp up your business profile.".

• This is a Personal attack, which should not happen in any online community. I take great offense to the idea that I would stoop to using Wikipedia to 'amp up my business profile'. I am not stupid. I know this is not the purpose of Wikipedia. HomeFinder Channel 100 already has an amped business profile. HomeFinder Channel 100 is already all over the WWW, is already in the news regionally, and already ranks #1 on Google for the best search term in it's market. Far be it from HomeFinder Channel 100 to misuse Wikipedia.

HomeFinder Channel 100 simply wishes to be recognized for notable accomplishments that rank as industry firsts. These accomplishments may not seem immediately notable to industry outsiders, but they have clearly been given press coverage by reliable sources. The accomplishments are significant developments in an emerging technology (IPTV). They impact a large part of society (anybody who buys or sells real estate). In the absence of accurate publication, others may come along and wrongfully assume they developed an innovation when it has in fact already been developed. It seems to me that an encyclopedia should be a reliable source as to whether or not an innovation exists, and who developed it. To this end, my contribution seems worthwhile and in fact completely within the spirit and intent of Wikipedia

It may be that somebody else may write about these things later, but why make a point of crushing the spirit of a contributor who did not wait until later?

Also, speaking in general, those of you who call this article an "AD" clearly do not understand advertising very well. I am in advertising so I know that this article would make a horrible ad. It does not fulfill ANY of the criteria for a good ad. There is no promise of benefits for a purchaser, no detailed feature list, no price, not even a mention of something available for sale. There is no invitation to buy, no request to contact the company with your questions, not even one call to action.

Also, I would like to report Teapotgeorge for being rude. Having a Wikipedia COI is not grounds for deletion, but grounds for extra care in writing, re-writing, cleaning up - per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest which says, in part:

Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of the related article they are editing, particularly if those edits may be contested. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia.

• I have already declared my interests. I am affiliated with HomeFinder Channel 100. I am interested in making Wikipedia better by making sure it includes notable innovations.

Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies—Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability—when editing in that area.

• Just because I am close to HomeFinder Channel 100 does not mean I cannot write the article. I have removed any semblance of self promotion and tried to merely document notable events and innovations.

FROM WIKIPEDIA - PERMISSION TO WRITE ABOUT YOUR COMPANY: (at link last given) If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, your company, or your pet idea, once the article is created, you have no rights to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels. Content is irrevocably added with every edit, and once added will not be deleted just because the author doesn't like it any more. Any editor has the right to add or remove material to the article within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually. More than one user has created an article only to find themselves presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. If you breach our editing policies or "edit war" in an attempt to obtain a version of your liking you are likely to have your editing access removed.

In addition, if your article is found not to be worthy of inclusion in the first place, it will be deleted, as per our deletion policies. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about.

FINALLY: I AM ABOUT TO ESCALATE TO CONTENT DISPUTE because my article DOES NOT meet the requirements for deletion, and editors who have commented so far are not acting in the spirit of Wikipedia as shared on your own COI Page

WIKIPEDIA CONTENT POLICES Primacy of basic content policies

All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not); encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view); as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. All editors are expected to stick closely to these policies when creating and evaluating material, and to respect the good faith actions of others who edit content to ensure it complies with these policies.

Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles. However, an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias.

Where an article is about something obviously important, but was written with too much COI to easily edit, it is often possible to reduce the article to basic identifying information, and then neutral editors can help improve the article.

Importance of civility

During debates on articles' talk pages and at articles for deletion, disparaging comments may fly about the subject of the article/author and the author's motives. These may border on forbidden personal attacks, and may discourage the article's creator from making future valuable contributions.

Avoid using the word "vanity" or similar judgmental terms—this is accusatory and discouraging. It is not helpful, nor reason to delete an article. Assuming good faith, start from the idea that the contributor was genuinely trying to help increase Wikipedia's coverage.

Conflict of interest in point of view disputes

Another case can arise in disputes relating to non-neutral points of view, where underlying conflicts of interest may aggravate editorial disagreements. In this scenario, it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IPTV Pioneer (talk • contribs) 19:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC) [reply]

• Comments Rightly or wrongly, the longer a poster goes on in AfD, the less people read it. There are many world-wide firsts that are not notable at the time of occurrence, and a lot of them are never notable. I quote: "HomeFinder Channel 100 simply wishes to be recognized for notable accomplishments" - it seems that five (so far) of the regular editors at Wikipedia feel that these have not been demonstrated to be within the bounds of notability as understood here. None of the regular editors (so far) have decided that they do. The references so far as I have checked (not very far as I am on a limited internet connection on a campsite in the Welsh mountains) appear to be brief mentions not real coverage. Peridon (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHY DONT YOU FOLLOW YOUR OWN RULES? Having been driven to the conflict of interest and dispute resolution pages here, I don't understand why you don't follow your own rules?

The following is from Wikepedia Dispute Resolution Page

Avoiding disputes

Shortcut:

WP:Discussion

A variety of positive methods exist for helping to positively resolve disputes, before using formal processes or third-party intervention.

Focus on content

Shortcut:

WP:FOC

Further information: Wikipedia:Editing policy

The most important first step is to focus on content, and not on editors.Wikipedia is built upon the principle of collaboration and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is important to any community.

When you find a passage in an article that you find is biased or inaccurate, improve it if you can. If that is not easily possible, and you disagree with a point of view expressed in an article, don't just delete it. Rather, balance it with what you think is neutral. Note that unreferenced text may be tagged or removed because of our policy on Verifiability.

I submit that since the major rewrite, the focus of editor objections is on ME due to issue of 'apparent' COI (absolutely not grounds for deletion all by itself) or on my MOTIVE as in advertising or PR accusations(absolutely and demonstrably false). The CONTENT should be the thing we talk about. Is it true? Is it notable? If so then it should be allowed. I have revised and re-written to make it about the content - but the editor comments continue to be about my person and my motivation - without regard to Wikipedias own guidelines. See notability. Somewhere in here I read that coverage by three independent sources is considered proof of notability, and that the reference does not have to be the main point of the independent article.

BTW: Neutralhome - we are WAY PAST Speedy Delete...That is not even an option.

BTW: To All, Thanks for the helpful civility and suggestions about how to make my article better.

Move to close and speedy delete as a blatantly promotional article. Why wasn't this CSD'd in the first place? elektrikSHOOS 03:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can be addressed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Colony (U.S. TV series) season 2[edit]

The Colony (U.S. TV series) season 2 (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 pointless fork almost devoid of content; both this and The Colony (U.S. TV series) season 1 should be merged into the parent article, The Colony (U.S. TV series). Orange Mike | Talk 20:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Might I suggest just going ahead and merging then?—RJH (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I fully agree. Both lists are unnecessary insertions, and should be merged into The Colony (U.S. TV series) which obviously needs the extra content. SteveStrummer (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the best course of action would be to continue to have the main article describing the overall series and keep separate articles for season 1 and 2. However, Season 2 is currently in its infancy and would be fairly bare for the next few months until the season is completed. Although all the content could fit into one article, keeping 1 article for a multi-season show is short-sighted. Coreyob (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afterthought: perhaps the best course of action for now is no action. Wait until season 2 is done, then see whether it's worth keeping both seasons as separate articles. Coreyob (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep While a merge isn't a terrible outcome, we have precedent that notable shows broken into seasons do merit an article per season as long as someone is willing to write them. Reality shows do not strike me as particularly worthwhile or of any lasting value, but the same "rules" should apply fairly across the board. Jclemens (talk) 00:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now with a possible merge later. As the person who started a discussion before season two began, I am likely the catalyst of there being multiple articles. The show, though a reality series (that, somewhat resembles a "survival" documentary since it is not a competition) each season behaves more like a single, long episode. A lot of information needs to be retained, so for the ease of completeness it needs to be built on per-episode rather than waiting until the season has ended. After the series has ended, consider merging or consider that the article may then be too long to merge and should remain separate. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 17:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'd keep it. I came here looking for information about the show. Most other shows seem to be separated into subpages like this. I think for consistency, it's better to keep the page even if its a little weak in order to maintain a standardized format across Wikipedia. Standards make it easier for the users in the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.228.19 (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The amount of content already in the season 1 article is an indication of how much could be expected to be added to the season 2 article, and it is not uncommon for episode listings/summaries to be divided by seasons. -- Bovineone (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Here are some similar examples of other reality shows involving a different cast for each season and have been divided into separate articles on wikipedia: The Real World, Big Brother, Survivor, Hell's Kitchen, Shear Genius, Who Wants to Be a Superhero?, True Beauty, etc.

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Paul[edit]

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

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

Unable to find any sources independent of the suject that discuss the subject sufficiently to establish notability. The subject's works have been published extensively, as evidenced by the lengthy 'external links' section, but I don't see this meeting WP:CREATIVE or WP:GNG. The page is also a WP:COI in that it strongly appears to be written by the subject. J04n(talk page) 19:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 19:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per NOM. unremarkable photographer, reads like a CV/autobio. Most prose is unverifiable.--ClubOranje^T 21:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable person. Sure it's a lovely CV, and I am sure his mum is very proud, but that is not the place for it.--Karljoos (talk) 04:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daph Nobody[edit]

Daph Nobody (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)

Massive unsourced BLP that reads suspiciously like an autobiographical puff piece Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I smell a big fat WP:HOAX. Some of the film references don't stack up (names are legit but dates are all wrong) and even with google.fr and Babelfish, I am having trouble establishing WP:RS. Eddie.willers (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It looks like autobio puffery, and it's essentially unsourced. Per WP:GNG & WP:RS. I'll accept info on potential hoax as well. — Becksguy (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

King Punisher[edit]

King Punisher (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 BLP of a cybervandal. It has caused a bit of drama as it was created by some blocked sock and recreated by a SPA. However, the larger question is notability.

He seems to have mentioned in some books and articles, but:

1. Does "mention" = notability if he's not the subject.
2. All the articles are by the same author Dr. Matthew Williams, who is himself not particularly notable.
3. All the subject seems to have done is vandalise one online site, which isn't notable enough for its own article.
4. Even if that gives notability, does it fail BLP1E?

Discuss. Scott Mac 18:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I signed up and recreated it because I thought the article was intriguing, so I decided to copy the file for offline keeping and attempt to improve on it. I decided to wait and let the original creator's SPI investigation close so the drama could be kept down to a mimimun. What is funny is that the guy died according to a local in the community at some city called Crystal City, but without a indication of what state. Demonical Monk 19:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also about the SPA thing, I have an account on another wiki for Transformice which got 404ed by some vandals who claim to be in some Operation called Full Troll. Demonical Monk 19:02, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt This is likely User:Pickbothmanlol. He's been creating articles on The Order (cyberterrorist gang) and the such, which apparently includes King Punisher, in addition to vandalizing Active Worlds, the site King Punisher was active on. Additionally, looking at the original references/bibliography for this article here, each and every article cited were cited by Pickbothmanlol on his various attempts to create a page for The Order (viewable by admins). AniMate 19:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• delete a previous version of this article had been deleted under BLP because it named the real life individual and called him a "cyberterrorist" without providing any footnoted sources to verify. Looking closer into the sources now, I see that the "cyberterrorist" is actually someone who vandalized pixel houses on cybersite(s?). And those places where he is active, as named in the sources, are not even notable as websites themselves - let alone identifying one individual as being "notable" for his activity on the site. Looks like someone trying to self promote. Active Banana (talk) 20:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt, per the above. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt per AniMate and the Banana's reasoning. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. The article still needs serious work, though. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook revolution[edit]

Facebook revolution (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 would have prodded/speedied this, but expected considerable dissent, considering the viewpoints expressed. The term 'Facebook Revolution' is quite generic and cannot be used to signify anything just to do with Kashmir, a state with geographies extending into both India and Pakistan. Either this page should be deleted; or the page in reality should have a generic connotation (aka, 'Facebook revolution' across the world...). ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 16:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 16:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An imperfect title is not a legitimate reason to delete an article. Townlake (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see in the least how this is a deletion issue. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Needs to be wikified and retitled. I suggest "2010 Kashmir "Facebook revolution"... Carrite (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. You want to delete this page merely because the title is "quite generic"? This is Articles for Deletion. You are not proposing to delete the article, you want to move the article. Please note the difference between those two italicized words. I have no idea how this nom has not already been speedily kept under criterion 1.2. Relating to the article itself, it at least appears to be a notable topic, and articles cannot be deleted just because they are in bad shape. Xenon54 (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Xenon, Ten Pound Hammer, analyse my viewpoints below with a neutral perspective:

  Ten Pound Hammer undertook a speedy close on this AfD within 24 hours of this AfD being opened, and very supportively reopened it post discussions on my talk page. Therefore, I am constrained to consider his keep vote as one having a conflict of interest.

  Xenon, irrespective of that, I do believe there's strength in your and Ten Pound Hammer's argument. I am quite open to this article being retitled to 2010 Kashmir Facebook revolution. But to have the article Facebook revolution be a redirect to 2010 Kashmir Facebook revolution will be ironical as that would be a critical editorial mistake. And that's where I request again that post the retitling, the article Facebook revolution be deleted, rather than be redirected to an article pertaining to Kashmir. I hope that comes out clearer now? ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 18:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then move the article and go to redirects for discussion to delete the resulting redirect. If I understand you correctly, I believe WP:RFD#DELETE criterion 2 ("The redirect might cause confusion") would fit this situation perfectly, especially as there may be other "Facebook revolutions" in the future. Xenon54 (talk) 20:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Now that I have you on my side, allow me to mention that as the article, per se, contains non-neutral and controversial content, moving it would require discussions on the talk page of the article, and post those (hopefully successful) discussions, the deletion of the redirect would require further discussions on the RfD board. That's double the investment of effort already undertaken. Now consider the alternative. In case the editors on this AfD page agree, and as this forum is anyway quite an exhaustive forum for editorial discussions, we could reach a consensus here that combines the two points - that is, moving the page to 2010 Kashmir Facebook revolution and at the same time deleting the original Facebook revolution page. Such combining of the discussions would not only save time, but reduce the load on the AfD forum. I know that this would be radical, and would ignore some rules. But the closing admin could combine all the statements here to take the appropriate move+deletion steps in one go (in case consensus here is for that). What say? ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 17:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please. I'm not "on [your] side". You propose that this AfD continue to closure, at which point the closing admin takes the actions you propose. I don't think that is the best way to go about this. Everyone else here wants this AfD to be closed immediately as an inappropriate nomination. The move you propose, in my opinion (and I'm sure others' opinions as well) is non-controversial, involving only the move from a misleading title to a more accurate one; therefore, the move does not inherently require a discussion or consensus. Reiterating what I said -- I think the best way to take care of the misnomer is to be bold and move the damn thing already, withdraw the AfD, and then go to RfD and get the redirect deleted. Quite frankly, this discussion is becoming too complex for what is essentially a minor naming issue. Xenon54 (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My take on consensus here is that your AFD fails WP:DEL, which is policy. This AFD should be closed; the article remains subject to improvement through other methods. Nobody, including the nominator, is arguing for deletion. Townlake (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Xenon, Townlake. I appreciate your comments and would be perfectly alright with this AfD being closed. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 03:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Every "cause" in the real world has at least one group dedicated to it on facebook, orkut or other SNS sites. Some of them may become a bit more notable enough to get a bit of media attention in the small press. Are we going to have a corresponding fanpage on Wikipedia too for each of them. The article is a coatrack for pushing for a cause. None of the sources mention "facebook revolution" as a term. Most mentions are simply of Kashmiri facebook users discussing the current burning issue on facebook adn a few of them being called by the police. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 10:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Robinson[edit]

Simon Robinson (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 BLP for which I have been unable to verify the article content. The lack of independent coverage would imply that he does not meet general notability guidelines, nor does he appear to meet the more specific WP:ENT. Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 16:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not appear to pass muster within WP:ENT. Eddie.willers (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All I can find on this fellow is wikimirrors.[5] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Best I can find is this listing from The Stage which seems to indicate a significant role over a period of time but I've drawn a blank on the other productions. Does not seem to meet WP:ENT's requirement for significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.--Plad2 (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I think after a previous discussion and a DRV we need spend no further time dealing with an article whose deletion was endorsed 3 days ago. Salting too Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Halevy[edit]

Jeff Halevy (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)

We just spent a week getting rid of this rubbish, same not notable fitness trainer, strongest possible delete and this time salt it so it can not be recreated again Off2riorob (talk) 15:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• KEEPand COMPLETE NONSENSE. Find me one other fitness personality who was included by name in a congressional platform. Oh that's not notable right, because it occurs every day? Nonsense. Halevy and his startup mind you, were included by name in a congressional platform. And all of the prior media confirms his presence. Yeah you're really on the mark with "not notable fitness trainer." If you have a gym near you why not stop in and ask how many trainers there are part of a congressional platform? Further How many are healthy lifestyle spokespeople for brands like Energy Kitchen? How many were name one of "America's Ultimate Experts" by Woman's Day -- the largest circulating women';s magazine? How many train celebrities like Vanessa Minnillo and have it covered in a six page spread in Self, along with a video on Self's site? How many have trained NASCAR drivers? And how many have had feature national segments about it? How many author articles on mind-body change becasue they also have a background in neuro linguistic programming? Oh yeah, this guy's definitely just another "not notable fitness trainer" -- your statement my friend is rubbish. -Chad hermanson (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• delete - as last time. I appreciate people trying to write deleted articles - but this suffers identical problems to last time. Fails notability quite spectacularly :) Strongest claim to notability is the congress campaign - but if you read the source it is not only WP:OR but it is also only a trivial mention. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 15:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom and per WP:LASTTIME; SALT ukexpat (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Salt it, umm yeah, a little anger issue there huh? Why would a rewrite with new important info (Congressional platform) even qualify for salting it? Same old bunch of nonsense, same people. Chad hermanson (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  (I've refactored the above comment by Chad hermanson, removing out-of-context comments from Talk:Jeff_Halevy#We ready for another AfD? between myself and Chad hermanson. --Ronz (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: You won't do yourself any favours by railing against every user who comments here. You have made your point twice now and that's enough. More is not better. – ukexpat (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above, non notable - the SPAs creating this consistently refuse to listen to experienced editors regarding the meaning of the guidelines, the quality of the sources required etc. Preferring instead their own unique interpretations such as "Also since Halevy is the founder of and CEO of Fitterwith, the coverage of Fitterwith is essentially about him..." to bridge the rather obvious gaps. Suggest WP:SALT --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of notability is quite evident, being featured in a magazine once and listed in a few places does not in itself meet notability requirements. Article re-created after a consensus delete was made... SALT IT. Nitack (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep out of sympathy, why not? Jimzah32 (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2010 (UTC)— Jimzah32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  — Jimzah32 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Comment - not a valid reason for keeping. – ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nitack do your homework: Halevy wasn't "featured in a magazine once" -- go to the older version of the article that had all the citations from major news outlets: NY Daily News (three times); ABC News; AOL; Men's Health, Forbes, Women's Health, CBS News (twice) -- so ixnay on your STRAW MAN -- and 82.7.40.7 whose picture ran with the story about fitterwith...was it oh...Jeff Halevy -- why yes it was! So wrong-o buddy. And being included by name in a congressional platform is highly noteworthy...or have all the editors here been included in one too? My point exactly. Get over it. There's no need to beat up on this entry when there's ample sources and reasons to qualify notability. Nolongeranon Rob (talk) 20:25, 30 Ju?ly 2010 (UTC)

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

  So one article has his picture, therefore the article (which was trivial anyway) becomes about him? despite not giving one biographical facts about him? If it had a picture of a slug, would it become about slugs? I think you successfully demonstrate my point. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I have to chime in >> what a foolish and irrelevant statement! Why not say nothing if you have don't have anything intelligent to say in the first place? 72.248.3.102 (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  So the article not being about him, not mentioning any biographical facts and being trivial is foolish an irrelevant? I'll second your final question, so why didn't you? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Hello. I have been following this from the first time around. I want to give my $0.02. Clearly Halevy isn't the average guy you find in Crunch, and at the same time he hasn't written any books or have his own TV show. However it seems to me that he definitely is notable according to the rules of Wikipedia (I just spent about 45minutes reading them), and can't see why there's such contention over the article. It is certainly very unique to be part of a congressman's campaign (that is, used as a 'selling point') and it is also unique to be cited frequently in media, film segments, etc. I've worked with several trainers in my 53 years and none had any such distinguishing characteristics. I can't fathom why it would be injurious to Wikipedia and the community to have this article as a work in progress. If Halevy falls out of the public eye, then perhaps it should be deleted, but as of now I vote keep. -Katy —Preceding unsigned comment added by KatyW20 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  - — KatyW20 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete Being a candidate doesn't confer notability (but having other notability, of course, can lead to an article). Being part of a candidate's platform doesn't transfer notability. (Makes him sound like a plank, being part of a platform...) "noted for his work with celebrities [3] and athletes" also doesn't transfer notability. I don't know why, but I get a feeling that a bit of advertising may have been in someone's mind. Perhaps it's just me and my nasty mind. (UK sense of nasty, not the peculiar usage current in the USA.) "I can't fathom why it would be injurious to Wikipedia and the community to have this article as a work in progress. If Halevy falls out of the public eye, then perhaps it should be deleted" - no, that's not the way an encyclopaedia works. You have to achieve BEFORE not after getting an article. Halevy is probably good at what he does, but so are thousands of others. I don't think the naming as an 'ultimate expert' by Woman's World really cuts the mustard either. (Makes me think of Gilderoy Lockhart - sorry...) Peridon (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Well sourced, but just not notable.--LAAFan 05:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment What is with the keep !votes by users that have made few or no edits? Is this WP:SOCK?--LAAFan 05:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh Here we go again... I think you're right, and I'd like to point out to the new accounts that this is NOT a vote by numbers, it's a discussion. We often get a load of 'supporters' (or possibly one person with many names) trying to influence a discussion. It doesn't work. The admins and regulars here have seen it all before. I often say this. I don't think they read it, though. Peridon (talk) 08:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete i did due diligence, checked the references provided, including extra ones not in article. googled him. i see no evidence that he currently meets WP notability, for any single area or combination of areas. I dont see a need to salt the name (maybe some sort of semi-protection from creation? dont know our options here), as he could reasonably become notable by our standards in the future. If he publishes a book, gets promoted to a position in the political candidates staff AFTER election, or otherwise gains fame, no prejudice to recreation. i do hope someone reading this afd takes action on investigating the unusual behaviors of many of the editors commenting on the "keep" side. I want to assume good faith, but it sure looks like someone or some group is trying to game the system, and are in addition using unhelpful language in the process. And, to say it one more time on WP, if you think he is notable, simply provide reliable sources showing it, including print refs that can be confirmed at a library (whats a "print" and who is "library"?) :)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Administrative Delete - This just failed a notability challenge and popped up again. Which would have been understandable, perhaps, if the article was more than a vapid stub. Nothing lost in this deletion, in my opinion. Come back in a couple years with a well-sourced article demonstrating achievement. Carrite (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP Same as last time, agree this entry warrants existence. The sources, including those deleted in the edit, meet verifiability requirements. And to reiterate once again, Halevy's accomplishments are noteworthy. I don't know a single other trainer (I did a search as well) who has been named in a congressional platform. And for the Americans here, that is not "trivial." This article doesn't warrant deletion, but should remain a stub. Once further achievements are actualized we can remove stub status. If that never happens, let's delete it. And salting this thing makes absolutely no sense - talk about creating a hostile environment here...Shayes1175 (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Geister (actor)[edit]

David Geister (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)

Non-notable actor lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. ttonyb (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:ACTOR. Come back when you've made it, kid! Eddie.willers (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Roles thus far are either not "significant," (like "Restaurant Patron") and from shows/movies that are not notable (like the 48 Hour Movie Project). He could very well become a break-out hit at any time, in which case an article will be appropriate; or he could give up and become an accountant. At this point though, he doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG.Qwyrxian (talk) 07:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. 6 minor roles do not a career make.[6] Fails WP:ENT, WP:GNG, and WP:BIO. Come back in a few years David. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadanori Nomura[edit]

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

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject sufficient to verify WP:N. This WP:BLP has remained unreferenced for three years, the suject's Japanese Wikipedia page is also unreferenced. J04n(talk page) 15:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 15:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 15:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It doesn't help that the linked home page comes up "page not found" ... —Quasirandom (talk) 01:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reliable sources to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 01:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unable to find reliable sources to verify article. Davewild (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Takayuki Negishi[edit]

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

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

Unable to locate any reliable sources independent of the subject sufficient to establish notability. There may be sources in his native language but I have not been able to locate them. The only reference on his Japanese Wikipedia page merely confirms that he is a composer and lists his works. J04n(talk page) 14:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 14:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 14:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that ja.wiki reference gives us a place to start -- which is to say, that it's unreferenced is irrelevant and the issue is whether those credited works are sufficient to pass WP:COMPOSER or WP:CREATIVE. The article doesn't do a good job of selling this, as the list includes several notable series whose articles aren't wikilinked. Given that, this looks to me like a substantive body of creative work, enough so I'm inclined to say keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reliable sources to verify notability or any of the details stated in this article. --DAJF (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Unreferenced for 3 years? Delete unless well-referenced by end of this debate. Long enough.--Scott Mac 16:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't find independent secondary sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No vote. Just here to demonstrate that article sourcing past a certain point remains a specialist affair. --KrebMarkt (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Data dump, digging the Oricon database:

• As performer:
  • ルパン三世　ＤＥＡＤ　ＯＲ　ＡＬＩＶＥ　オリジナルサウンドトラック (Lupin III Dead or Alive)
  • Ｍｎｅｍｏｓｙｎｅ－ムネモシュネの娘たち－　サウンドトラック (Mnemosyne (anime))

• As composer (and near always also arranger):
  • Ｐｒｉｍａｌ　Ｓｃｒｅａｍ～ＢＬＯＯＤＹ　ＲＯＡＲオリジナル・サウンドトラック～
  • カードキャプターさくら　オリジナルサウンドトラック２ ＢＳ－２アニメ「カードキャプターさくら」より (Cardcaptor Sakura OST2)
  • カードキャプターさくら　オリジナルドラマアルバム２　ＳＷＥＥＴ ＶＡＬＥＮＴＩＮＥ　ＳＴＯＲＩＥＳ ＢＳ－２アニメ「カードキャプターさくら」より Charts Rank 76th
  • 終りのない夢に向って
  • カードキャプターさくら　オリジナルサウンドトラック３ ＢＳ－２アニメ「カードキャプターさくら」より Charts Rank 90th (Cardcaptor Sakura OST3)
  • 劇場版　カードキャプターさくら　オリジナル・サウンドトラック 松竹配給アニメ映画「カードキャプターさくら」より Charts Rank 78th
  • 菜々子解体診書　オリジナルサウンドトラック音楽的超療法１ ビデオ・アニメ「菜々子解体診書」より
  • カードキャプターさくら　オリジナル・サウンドトラック４ ＢＳ－２アニメ「カードキャプターさくら」より Charts Rank 70th (Cardcaptor Sakura OST4)
  • 菜々子解体診書　オリジナルサウンドトラック音楽的超療法Ⅱ
  • おかしのうた Charts Rank 82nd
  • 劇場版カードキャプターさくら　封印されたカード　オリジナル・サウンドトラック Charts Rank 60th
  • 大好き
  • わがまま☆フェアリー　ミルモでポン！ちゃあみんぐ　オリジナルサウンドトラック
  • Ｈａｐｐｉｎｅｓｓ＆Ｔｅｎｄｅｒｎｅｓｓ

Note that i'm withholding a long list of charts ranked CDs where Takayuki Negishi was credited for all arrangement. On that aspect he is a way more successful as an arranger than composer. --KrebMarkt (talk) 09:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the lack of substantial coverage in reliable sources. After a search on Google News Archive using both the subject's English name and his Japanese name, I have been unable to find sources about him. I have reviewed the links provided in KrebMarkts' data dump and have not find anything that would allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability. Because this article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people), Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and because it has been an unreferenced BLP for three years, it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 00:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Design Protection Council[edit]

Interior Design Protection Council (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)

Why the page should be deleted This article does not meet Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines. When I found the article it read like an op-ed piece, full of unsupported statements and references to things that had nothing to do with this group. After cleaning out the stuff that did not belong in the article I have tried to actually add relevant information into it. The only information to be found is from the website of the organization itself. This organization has not received any credible notoriety. Searches reveal the normal redistribution of material on the web, and no credible third party actually acknowledging the organiztaion. "Research" was added by another author, but that research only consisted of self-published PDFs from the subject organization as well, that had not been published in any journal or by a reliable source. As such, internet communities are not notable just by virtue of having a website, and this article should be deleted.Nitack (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I applaud the group's aims but, regrettably, they fail general notability guidelines. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A couple of references on the web does not notability make. The item from reason TV never made it into the actual magazine, and is dated 2008. The press release from the Institute for Justice is also dated 2008, and does not of itself indicate notability of the organization. The American Society of Interior Designers may have acknowledged their existence, but it sounds more like a brush off rather than acknowledgment of importance. Window Vision Magazine, is that magazine even notable in itself? Also, can you produce a link to the article(s) in question? At best this organization is a " flash in the pan", which does not qualify for notability. Although realistically even the sources listed here do not really even establish notability. What Wikipedia is not with attention to the news heading. General Notability guidelines, and all the criteria there seem to be in question. Wikipedia is not a marketing platform for a new or fledgling organization, the sad truth is that not every organization is notable. Everyone in my neighborhood knows about a specific restaurant as being good, and it has even gotten great reviews in a major national newspaper multiple times, but that still doesn't make it notable enough to warrent a Wikipedia article.Nitack (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Window Fashion Vision magazine has been around for a long time (http://www.wf-vision.com/default.aspx). Every year they host a large trade show called the "International Window Coverings Expo," usually in Atlanta, Georgia (http://www.wf-vision.com/expo.aspx), and they offer the industry WFCP (Window Fashions Certified Professionals) program (http://www.wf-vision.com/education.aspx). Interior Design Professional (talk) 19:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And none of that denotes notability. Every one of your links is internal to the organization.Nitack (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing notability/notoriety[edit]

This organization is highlighted on the Reason TV documentary "Throw Pillow Fight" http://reason.tv/video/show/throw-pillow-fight Interior Design Professional (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organization mentioned in a press release by Institute for Justice's kickoff of Interior Design Freedom Month http://www.ij.org/about/component/content/2357?task=view —Preceding unsigned comment added by Interior Design Professional (talk • contribs) 14:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC) Interior Design Professional (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In 2008, the American Society of Interior Designers released an 18-page "Message Guide" (http://www.asid.org/NR/rdonlyres/2D53B44E-5DBA-4504-BC24-153BFE7C8B3D/0/ASIDMessageGuide.pdf) which directs their members avoid using the term "Interior Design Protection Council" when defending their licensing advocacy, and goes on to provide "a hierarchy of possible messages that can be used when discussing the issues" [re IDPC], and even directs their members not to "engage our adversaries (IDPC and IJ) directly in debate." If the Interior Design Protection Council had no credibility, why would the oldest and largest interior design trade association go to such lengths to seclude their members from engaging in a free and fair exchange of views on an important issue that impacts the entire profession? Interior Design Professional (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Window Fashion Vision magazine ran an article entitle "Insurgence of the Independents" by Interior Design Protection Council's director in their November 2008 issue (http://www.idpcinfo.org/Insurgence_of_the_Independents.pdf). According to Susan Schultz at Grace McNamara (Vision's publisher), they have another article by IDPC slated for their August 2010 issue entitled, "Crushing the Cartel." They are editorials but they are not self-published, so I include them in the discussion only to establish that the IDPC is recognized in the industry. Interior Design Professional (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Association of Interior Design Professionals acknowledged and published a photograph on their website of an IDPC town hall meeting in Annapolis, Maryland in which IDPC director was the keynote speaker. http://aidponline.com/news.htm

Is that organization notable at all? One non-notable organization recognizing another non-notable organization does not establish notability.Nitack (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On April 26, 2010, the Interior Design Protection Council's attorney Robert Kry filed an Amicus brief with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Locke vs. Shore appeal of the Florida interior design law. http://www.idpcinfo.org/Amicus_Brief_of_Interior_Design_Protection_Council_.pdf 10 additional national organizations were contacted by IDPC and signed on to their brief. The IDPC has considerable clout and leadership in the industry in regards to opposing regulation and is the only organization formed solely for that purpose. Interior Design Professional (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can file an Amicus brief. Names attached to the brief does not indicate any level of clout in the industry. Please establish a citation for that assertion.Nitack (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interior Design Protection Council's director was interviewed and is quoted in an article about lighting legislation in LightSources magazine, Winter 2009. http://www.idpcinfo.org/Eco-friend_Lighting_Legislations_FEATURE_DENT.pdf Interior Design Professional (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is on a topic, not on IDPC, how does this establish notability for the organization rather than the topic?Nitack (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article about IDPC entitled "The Running Dogs of Interior Design" promoted on The Agitator.com http://www.theagitator.com/2008/03/25/the-running-dogs-of-interior-design/ Interior Design Professional (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a blog not a publication or reliable source according to Wikipedia Standards.Nitack (talk) 16:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In April 2008, in response to an editorial entitled "Watch Out for that Pillow," the Wall Street Journal selected four letters to the editor to publish out of hundreds that they received. The Interior Design Protection Council was one http://www.idpcinfo.org/LTE-WSJ.html; the others were from ASID, NCIDQ and the Institute for Justice. These are the two leading groups in favor of regulation and the two leading groups opposed to it. Interior Design Professional (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interior design protection council is not listed in the WSJ article at all, and a site search turns up nothing either.Nitack (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No definite conclusion has been reached. Many "keep" arguments are either vague or based on WP:ATA, while many "redirect" arguments vaguely parrot the same "non notable, but possible search term" argument. Both sides have called "speedy close" even though the situation is far more complex; as frequently brought up, this AfD is longer than the article itself. Whether it's a former featured article (not an indication of notability per se) or a passé fad (a vague, subjective characterization) has no bearing on the result, which is based on the sources provided. About halfway through, it appears that despite a numerical majority for "keep," there is a slight consensus towards "redirect" due to the higher quality of those arguments. But the "keep" !votes towards the end, which definitely contain portions of ATA that nonetheless don't negate their valid arguments, point out that perhaps Kww's standards were somewhat harsh; yes, most of the sources cannot be used to show notability, but if only a few of them are acceptable, then the subject is notable. Still, neither side is convincing enough to sway the entire debate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbasaur[edit]

Bulbasaur (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's time to finally get rid of this thing. The "sources will eventually be found" argument no longer holds water: Bulbasaur is part of a passe fad. If external sources were going to be found, they would have been found during the innumerable discussions that have been had. Despite the apparently impressive number of references, they are virtually all unacceptable: most are primary references to individual issues or episodes, officially licensed sources (licensed game guides), officially licensed Scholastic series, etc. Those few that are left are passing mentions (generally of the form "three starters are available: Bulbasaur, Charmander, and Squirtle"), or the occasional joke (referring to Bulbasaur as a "pesto salad"). In a final effort to prove notability, two satires have been used, clutching at this RSN discussion to show that satires are acceptable for demonstrating notability. That is being used to justify using this as a source. I can accept the concept of "widely satirized'=="notable", but the OSU Sentinel is a college newspaper. If the best independent source anyone can come up with is that, there's no reason to have this article. Given the disruptive history of this article, with anonymous editors resurrecting it and other editors then seizing on the opportunity to edit-war it back into existence, I would like to have the article deleted, and the position salted with a protected redirect to List of Pokémon (1–20)#Bulbasaur, along with all the other 400 some odd critters. —Kww(talk) 14:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Expansion: This refrain of "Kww is just whining about the sources" is getting annoying, so here's a detailed breakdown of the sourcing, as of this Aug 4 version.

1:Acceptable, used to source Japanese name, which is already in the table.

2:PR Newswire is a press release, in this case from Nintendo. Regardless, doesn't mention Bulbasaur.

3:IGN review: marginal by nature, and doesn't mention Bulbasaur.

4:Dictionary of Toys and Games in American Popular Culture is a directory, so it doesn't contribute to notability. Regardless, sources only the position in the Pokedex, already part of the list.

5:Pokedex is a primary source.

6:Pokemon Trainers Guide is Nintendo licensed.

7:Game Freak might be acceptable, but this article doesn't mention Bulbasaur.

8:Anime Explosion!: The What? Why? & Wow! of Japanese Animation may be acceptable, but this is used only to source the Japanese name, a component of the table.

9:Time is quite reputable, but what do we get? "Fushigidane, a dinosaur with a green garlic bulb on its back, became Bulbasaur;, which has already been sourced and is in the table.

10 Smashbrothers.com is published by Nintendo.

11 ditto.

12 Pokédex is a Nintendo publication.

13 Pokédex is a Nintendo publication.

14 Pokédex is a Nintendo publication.

15 The Official Pokémon Handbook is a Nintendo-licensed game guide.

16 Localizing Pokémon Through Narrative Play contains some references to Bulbasaur in the interviews with children about playing with Pokémon.

17 Pokemon.co.jp is a Nintendo website.

18 Millennial Monsters: Japanese Toys and the Global Imagination. contains a starter list: "A player must first find Professor Oak—the world's foremost expert on Pokémonology—who offers three choices for starter Pokémon: Bulbasaur (grass type), Charmander (fire type), or Squirtle (water type)."

19 Parentpreviews.com contains a passing reference: "A later excursion takes us to Ochre Woods where Bulbasaur is making stew for lunch".

20 Passing reference in a table listing hundreds of prizes in a game.

21 Smashbrothers.com is a Nintendo site, and this is just another copy of the Smash Brothers Melee prize list.

22 "Seaside Pikachu" video is a primary source.

23 "Seaside Pikachu" video is a primary source.

24 "Seaside Pikachu" video is a primary source.

25 "Pikachu Party" video is a primary source.

26 "Grass Hysteria" is a primary source.

27 "Pruning a Passel of Pals!" is a primary source.

28 http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=270 is a directory listing, used to source the American dub voice.

29 http://maco.cha.to/pokemon/pipipi/chara03.html appears to be a fansite.

30 Pokémon Adventures, Volume 1: Desperado Pikachu is a primary source.

31 Pokémon Adventures: Legendary Pokémon, Vol. 2 is a primary source.

32 Pokémon Adventures, Volume 3: Saffron City Siege is a primary source.

33 ditto.

34 "Official Pokemon TCG site" is a licensed source.

35 Bulbasaur's Bad Day is a primary source.

36 Pokemon Tales Volume 3: Bulbasaur's Trouble is a primary source.

37 http://www.gamesradar.com/ds/f/the-complete-pokemon-rby-pokedex-part-1/a-200708209459101025/g-2006100415372930075 is a reproduction of the Pokedex

38 http://www.allgame.com/character.php?id=3141 is a table entry in a game guide

39 http://www.pojo.com/priceguide/jpMcD.html is a price guide listing of Pokemon giveaways, listing Bulbasaur as a Pokemon trading card.

40 http://www.fastfoodtoys.net/burger+king+pokemon+power+cards.htm is another listing of giveaways.

41 https://www.ana.co.jp/eng/flights/pokemonjet/design.html lists Bulbasaur as one of 11 Pokemon on the plane design.

42 2004 standard catalog of world coins documents novelty coin minted by Nieu. Part of a complete index of world coins.

43 http://my.hsj.org/Schools/Newspaper/tabid/100/view/frontpage/articleid/336320/newspaperid/1422/Pokemon_Pres_Spearot_Uses_Cartoon_Icons_To_Give_Children_A_Wii_Bit_of_Joy.aspx is a high school newspaper.

44 is a duplicate of 41

45 http://edition.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/TV/9910/05/pokemon/ gives a passing mention to Bulbasaur in an article about school discipline troubles caused by trading card games.

46 VIZ Media Announces New Pokémon Products for 2006 Holiday Season is a press release.

47 Pondering Pokemon is an editorial in a college newspaper.

48 Pokemon War! Point-Counterpoint is an article in a satirical college newspaper. It's about like using The Onion as a source.

49 Bulbasaur Biography on IGN is part of a directory listing.

50 http://faqs.ign.com/articles/380/380258p1.html is a pseudonymously published game walkthrough.

51 http://www.gamesradar.com/f/the-top-7-gut-wrenching-choices/a-2009050410717660001/p-4/c-1?newest is an editorial column, mentioning the editorial writer's personal opinion about Ivysaur.

52 http://www.salon.com/entertainment/col/mill/1999/07/06/pikachu/print.html : the pesto joke.

53 http://web.archive.org/web/19990508192305/http://starbulletin.com/1999/04/26/features/story1.html is an entertainment story written by a group of 4 children between 5 and 8 years old.

54 Pikachu's global adventure is acceptable enough, but is being used to source one anonymous child's opinion of Bulbasaur.

So, there you go. I'm not whining. 54 sources, virtually all of them unacceptable, and the very few acceptable ones don't say anything that isn't in the list article.—Kww(talk) 16:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's impressive, and will be useful in cleaning up the article more if it still exists. Your'e still glossing over the three sources that establish notability. I didn't look to hard, but the IGN directory doesn't seem to be something that covers everything. It's selective about which ones actually receive a lot of coverage, like Bulby. I wish The Onion would do a long article on Bulby. That would be great for establishing notability, in my opinion. And the Notre Dame editorial is also a good one. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not glossing. The Notre Dame editorial contributes nothing to the article. Even if you accept the idea that an op-ed piece in a college newspaper is a source, all it sources is the opinion of one Justin Tardiff, a completely unimportant person. The satire article is just that, and the IGN directory entry is a directory entry. If we had any hint of their selection standards, maybe it would squeak by. Articles are supposed to rely on independent sources, and you can't rely on independent sources if they don't say anything.—Kww(talk) 17:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even though they list all the Pokemon, or other characters, they don't write much about all of them. Only a select few give what is needed for reception. Just because they write about all of them doesn't mean it can't be used. You are looking to deep into things. Those IGN and GamesRadar sources are fine. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that IGN guide is written by a staff member. We have discussed it before with other articles. She is legit. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems silly to decry the GamesRadar articles on that logic. So what if the first is a reproduction of the Pokédex? It still discusses Bulbasaur. And as for the latter, editorial or not, it's still an approved article by a reliable source. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt per Kww. It has been several months/years now. If sources were out there, they would have been found. The people who are so adamant it be kept either couldn't find anything worthwhile or didn't even bother looking. There's nothing here that can't be kept in the List. Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Pokémon (1–20)#Bulbasaur - Even though I think it probably has enough notability, this isn't really the right place to have this discussion. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has enough sources for notability. Other editors are just wanting to redirect based on older versions of the article, and just dislike 2 of the sources, which the article doesn't rely on for notability. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 15:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect it back to the list, and protect the redirect if necessary. Its a plausible search term, and having the history intact will help anyone who wants to write a better article on the subject. In the meantime, its probably not notable enough for its own article. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as separate article. It has received significant coverage in independant reliable sources. It's also getting a bit of coverage as we speak.[7][8][9] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That "coverage" is from people who speculate that Victini is #000 in the National dex, when it is just #000 in the Isshu dex. It doesn't really qualify for anything._Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:10, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. True, printed sources are limited to brief notices in family-oriented "non-fiction" variety. But their number indicates that the phenomenon has crept into "popular culture" or, at least, children's world. No indication of "passe fad". BTW, what makes "this time" so good for "finally getting rid of this thing"? East of Borschov 18:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It was resurrected yesterday by yet another editor that logged out prior to doing so. There's a history here: the edit wars start only after being touched off by anonymous editors, never by an editor that will take responsibility for his actions.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, agree with previous suggestions and reasoning on redirect. The subject is notable but only as a member of the larger group/list and phenomenon. Likely to be the subject of future searches, so redirect is justified.Nitack (talk) 19:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Pokémon (1–20)#Bulbasaur It lacks significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, outsode the parent franchise. Edison (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redir to target noted by others. No independent, significant coverage, fails WP:N. Time to take a firmer hand with nerdcruft here. Tarc (talk) 23:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Not that it matters, but to say "no significant coverage" without explaining why the significant coverage that is already in the article doesn't count is a bit lame. But it's OK, I don't always supply well reasoned votes myself. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was tempted to reply at your !vote, but refrained. The problem is that there is no significant coverage. Even if we grant the notability of satire, satire articles in college newspapers certainly can't be considered "significant coverage". Aside from that, you've got virtually nothing. If there's "significant coverage" from independent sources, you'll have to point it out.—Kww(talk) 03:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not the notability of satire. You need three things. 1) It has to be a reliable source. College newspapers are considered reliable sources. 2) Is has to be non-trivial. The source is multiple paragraphs. I think they break it down into two pages, even. 3) It has to be indpendant. The college newspaper is not affiliated with Nintendo, so it is independent. So, by the rules of WP:NOTE, it passes. Now, AfDs are actually vote counts, and not weird impartial weighing of arguments (contrary to what people like to state, and I actually think vote counting is the correct way to go anyways), but based on our rules, this subject meats NOTE. Oh, and there was that other source that pretty much everyone agreed was good.[10] So the college newspaper article is the second one, and there is no policy based reason to not count it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even if you remove that reference though, there are still plenty of other sources discussing the subject. I think Bulbasaur is not becoming an article because everybody is so focused on that one source being bad. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The reason why is that back in 2008 (I think it was), Bulbasaur became a proxy article in a big fight over the coverage of fiction on Wikipedia. That's why Kww cares about the article, it's also why I care about the article. It stands for "fiction coverage should be scaled back" vs. "fiction coverage should not be scaled back". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • In response to your whiny, but not unexpected, "well reasoned votes" remark... Looking through the citations in this article, I see satire refs in college rags, name-drops in reviews of the video games where this character appears, and little else. Show me something on the level of Pikachu being #2 on a Time People of the Year list. Tarc (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • All this article has is multiple reliable, independent, non-trivial sources. If you raise the bar beyond that, I admit it will not pass. Or course you've then raised the bar beyond what NOTE requires, so while I don't find your argument to be super well reasoned, your getting there. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Sources that, at most, do a name-drop. That is about as non-trivial as it gets. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was a former featured article, linked to on the main page of the Wikipedia. It is a major character in a notable series, even appearing in the title of some of the games, books, and animated films. The Reception and legacy section of the article, shows it gets ample coverage. Dream Focus 06:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close, redirect to List of Pokémon (1–20)#Bulbasaur, and indef-protect the redirect. In substance, this is really a discussion over whether an article should have been restored from a redirect, not whether an article should be outright deleted along with its revision history. With that said, this particular discussion should really be carried out at Talk:Bulbasaur. If a consensus cannot be reached, that's where the Requests for comment feature comes in. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per nom and Melicans. None, or few, of the reliable sources cover the subject in detail. Any important information can be summarized in List of Pokémon (1–20). I'd also like to point out that I think some of the other species that have their own articles should be redirected. Rayquaza, for example, is just as "non-notable" as Bulbasaur IMO. Theleftorium ^(talk) 08:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The issue is essentially one of forking. The nomination asserts that this is a passé fad, as if this were either true or relevant, but does not actually want us to remove Bulbasaur content from Wikipedia. Instead, the content is to be contained in the article List of Pokémon (1–20). The latter seems an entirely synthetic creation of Wikipedia editors — this grouping is not supported by any reliable source and so it is tagged as requiring reliable sources. Bulbasaur is an especially notable Pokemon, as it is prominent in the game and other media. Putting together notable Pokemon with less notable Pokemon to make arbitrary anthologies or compilations, seems quite improper. This list in question has not reached featured status, as the Bulbasaur article did, and has itself been nominated for deletion more than once. So, removing a featured article to bolster a dubious and inferior list seems quite absurd and we should build upon the stronger foundation. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Bulbasaur is a former featured article; one of over 800 articles to have lost the status, many of which also appeared on the front page. That it was featured in the past has no bearing on this discussion. It was promoted over 4 years ago, and demoted over three. The FA standards have changed exponentially in the last four years, so to claim it should be kept because it was once featured and the list has not is, quite simply, ridiculous. It has been said multiple times in previous discussions over the course of several months/years that proper third-party sources are needed; details that focus on Bulbasaur, and do not give it just a passing mention. The people who advocate that the article be kept have said that they exist, but consistently fail to produce any. It would seem that they do not exist after all. Melicans (talk, contributions) 14:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply:Please don't misrepresent my views. I absolutely want the content contained at Bulbasaur that is not currently in the list to be deleted. It consists of a completely unnecessary expansion of the plot summaries of the referenced works combined with unnecessary trivia. I clearly desire for the "delete" button to be pressed. Further, your logic seems to be based on a mechanical restriction: you object to the "1-20" grouping, when all that is for is to avoid the size problems presented by a complete "List of Pokemon" article.—Kww(talk) 15:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Your command of the topic seems weak. For example, the main Bulbasaur article tells us the name of the designer of this creation. This is a quite important fact which the List article does not contain. Your dismissal of such information as plot/trivia is clearly false and misleading. Also, your description of the game as a passe fad is likewise false. By coincidence, a friend of mine recently boasted that he and his son were going on an expenses paid trip to Hawaii, to compete in the World Championships, the son having won the national championship here. There are few other games which are supported in this lavish way. Nintendo's financial reports for the last FY indicates that the game still sells millions of units in various forms and so is still a major franchise. As your usual stamping ground is popular music, it seems apparent that your activity here is not due to any genuine interest or knowledge of the topic but reflects instead a hostility towards it. Such antagonistic activity is contrary to policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, Protect - Normally, from the sources given and what I see on Google Books/Scholar, I would rather we keep in favor of something that is more than non-notable. But this would be an exception: most of Bulbasaur's notability is really just from it being one of the core Pokemon and not, say, like Pikachu where it's recognizable outside of the series. It is a fine line, but I think here the better approach is to discuss the real-world points (eg toy sales, favorite pokemon) in the larger context of the franchise itself as opposed to separate articles for each character, because there's minimal discussion of any critical response to the character. If this is redirected and protected, there should be a message to contact a specific admin or group to propose a new version of the article that may be better suited in the future for notability as to allow review and restoration, if needed. --MASEM (t) 15:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Pokémon (1-20)#Bulbasaur per the precedent used for most Pokémon. The List has enough detailed information where a redirect would work perfectly. Tavix |  Talk  18:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing vote to Keep. After reviewing the size of the article, I feel much information would burden the List of Pokémon (1-20) too much. Tavix |  Talk  21:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 19:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep...I believe notability is well defined. How do we let AfD butcher what used to be a great article? Raymie Humbert (t • c) 20:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - per WP:GNG and WP:OVERZEALOUS as this is the third AfD nomination and burden of delete, redirect or merge has not been proven. Bulbasaur is one of the main Pokemon characters and the article has sufficient reliable sources to establish notability. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. It's clearly not ready to be an article. Most people who want the article kept ad using emotional responses - "Bulbasaur is one of the main Pokemon characters"; "How do we let AfD butcher what usedto be a great article?" - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - "Clearly not ready to be an article"? Yes, being built in 2007 clearly is yesterday and the iVote Delete above is another example of I don't like it and want to delete it. ----moreno oso (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree completely. Tavix |  Talk  21:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It could be that, or it could be the fact that the references are not quite up to snuff to be separate yet. I don't need keep voters attempting to sum up my reasoning for redirection as being invalid; I dislike it so much that I have added references to the article over the time it's existed. Oh me oh my. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It's older than that - our archives show it was featured in July 2006. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 18:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and/or redirect after this much time we should admit there are no appropriate sources to WP:VERIFYNOTABILITY. (Only primary sources, game guides, instruction manuals or quotes that verify bare existence.) No one has been able to fix this article to meet Wikipedia standards. To quote WP:V, "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Shooterwalker (talk) 21:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To make such a suggestion that it can never happen is going to extremes. I never thought I could make Waluigi or King Hippo. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And here are the sources that establish notability, so it's already happened.[11][12] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The effort is much-appreciated, but the article still needs work in the way of references. I've recently found two articles covering Bulbasaur; it shouldn't be hard to find more. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes the general notability guidelines. --Malkinann (talk) 23:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• redirect and protect- does not pass the general notability guideline in its own right, but is a very plausible search term. Reyk _YO! 23:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be HOUNDING (or something) at this point, but I've provided two reliable, independent, non-trivial (so on and so forth) sources in a previous post not far above, which are used in the article. Can you give me a policy based reason why those two sources aren't one of the three (I ask, because I've been here a long time, and I know those policies will not provide a reason, mr. closing admin). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I'm generally in agreement w/ the nom's statement. I will check back when I have made a more thorough search of the past AfDs and possible sources. Protonk (talk) 01:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone have access to this?[13] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article is probably this. My library says that full text is available via free access but that doesn't seem to be the case. Protonk (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's good to know. I probably can't get it in rural Southern Oregon, but at least it kinda exists. Thanks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, solely to troll the pathetic social invalids who are actually bothered by the existence of this article. It's been there for fucking years and no one cares even slightly except for the <20 people who want to destroy it. Jesus Christ, instead of putting so much effort into making sure people can't find information on a cartoon dinosaur, why don't you people go try to enforce your obtrusive and personal ideals about Wikipedia's standards on an article that actually matters? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it's been NOT an article for years. And please, watch your language. This isn't some random gaming forum. But by the way you form your post, you never actually say that the contents are strong enough to be separate. In fact, you specifically state that the article doesn't matter. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And look what he just wrote here. He wants to delete the lists because the information is redundant to Bulbapedia. He is swinging back and forth, lol. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:17, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've been here long enough to know the proper Wiki conduct protocols, but like most people I came to the realization a long time ago that these game and fiction related discussions/AfDs are just arbitrary circlejerks where nerds push their egos around with as much force as the guidelines allow. This article doesn't matter, it's a lame duck, so just make a decision and stick with it ffs. No one uses this site expecting to find any worthwhile information on subjects such as this anymore. And no, I'm not discussing the deletion of those lists because they're "redundant to Bulbapedia", it's because they're not actually useful at all. They're like a pile of fortune cookie fortunes sitting next to a textbook on philosophy and self-help. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 06:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps you should complain about policies on the policy pages, not everywhere else.
        • I see now that you understand conduct protocols, you just don't care about them. Wikipedia has no need for people who do not care about the policies. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • He does have a point: most of the fanfare about fiction deletion is way outsized in comparison to the actual marginal importance of a particular article. Most of the really big battles have been over conceptions of what wikipedia "ought" to be, they just happened to take place on AfDs for "Nameless Crewman No. 9" and "Obscure In Universe Concept from a Universe without Many On-wiki Fans". As for your response, I hope that isn't true. All evidence to the contrary, the purpose of wikipedia is to build a collaborative encyclopedia, not to construct and follow rules. Protonk (talk) 08:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • ""Ignore all rules" does not mean that every action is justifiable. It is neither a trump card nor a carte blanche. A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times. In cases of conflict, what counts as an improvement is decided by consensus." The rules exist to ensure that the collaborative encyclopedia is built correctly. Am I to understand that incivility and personal attacks are somehow allowed by IAR? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • No. You are to understand that rules ought to be subordinate to the end goal. When those rules become dominant or otherwise a force unto themselves, we ought to begin ignoring them. Obviously this is mostly a lost cause. Wikipedia's fifth pillar is not exactly a good description of practice. But my ears perk up when I read talk like "Wikipedia has no need for people who do not care about the policies." Protonk (talk) 17:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've never met anyone who thinks that caring for policies is somehow a wrong goal. I'm going to make the assumption that because they exist, that they are correct in their use almost every time. IAR exists for the infrequent exception where the rules interfere with the quality of an article. The policy is "ignore all rules", not "don't give no crap about the rules". If you don't care about the rules, it means that you don't understand them, and as such, you cannot possibly have any valid reason to employ the Ignore All Rules policy. So, I reiterate, if you do not care about the rules, then leave Wikipedia. And stop using IAR for something completely different from how it's supposed to be used. It's not to be used for general anarchy. Generally, the rules WILL be right. Otherwise, they wouldn't bother to have them. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Now now, no need to get into a pointless "Bureaucracy vs. Actual Constructiveness" war, that won't solve anything. It never does. It's kind of cute to see Retro's views on the rules be so rigid, like they're set in stone something, when they're really just ensemble essays put together by a bunch of internet goers that're in dire need of reform. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It's kind of cute to see you debate this subject when the only policy you've violated is incivility, which is not ignorable by any capacity. The only thing constructive that you could do, if you continue on the path that you're taking in this discussion, the most constructive thing you can do is leave the discussion. If you care to have a serious discussion about the article, then feel free. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable prev featured article, deletion is not a solution to cleanup problems the article may have. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The article has issues of non-notability, something that is not rectified by a simple "clean it up" non-response. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why do the current sources not suffice? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Your questioning is getting just a tad overdone, PF. It's because while satire may contribute to notability, a satire article from a college newspaper is about as weak as it can get. Because a description page from a site dedicated to describing every detail of every game comes under the heading of directory listing.—Kww(talk) 16:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you have a stronger case on the directory listing thing than the other. I haven't checked where IGN draws the line on Pokemon and other characters. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I looked into it a little bit. They've got a fricken ton of characters,[14] but the less famous ones don't have what we'd call significant coverage. For instance, some comic guy I never heard of (and I know comics).

[15] Even Aang doesn't have much.[16] I think Bulbasaur's page is bit rare, although they probably plan on expanding them all eventually. My search was also non scientific. They may focus on VG or anime characters, I don't know. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So even though Bulbasaur was featured on a legal tender coin from Niue, was voted one of the top ten Pokémon by fans, was deemed a children's favorite in 1999, and currently is featured on the side of an airplane for international flights[17], it STILL is not notable? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You people are acting like there are only 2 sources in the reception section. There are 11. What is wrong about those? _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of them are short mentions. I notice the Notre Dame Observer one is a bit over a paragraph though, so that's three reliable, independant, non-trivial sources. Nice. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, it's a paragraph. Please summarize the objective facts about Bulbasaur that it tells us that are not already present in the list article.—Kww(talk) 18:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just saying it helps to meet NOTE. (More) subjective things like it's value are not things I think I can convince you of. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are currently 54 reliable sources. Bad faith nomination. --138.110.206.99 (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - My inclination is that there is enough sourcing to warrant keeping the article and not redirecting, but I am on the fence so I can understand the desire for a redirect to the list, or even a protected redirect. But I don't understand why deletion should even be a consideration, given that the subject's presence in the list in not under debate (indeed, even the nominator refers to information in the list as a reason for deleting). Rlendog (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the user most advocating for it to be kept (Peregrine Fisher) asked for the article to be taken to AFD. Melicans (talk, contributions) 03:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And because there's nothing in the article that isn't in the list that needs to be kept? And because as long as it's there, anonymous editors perpetually resurrect the article without justification?—Kww(talk) 03:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Melicans: it's complicated. If you want, we can discuss it here. Are you aware of the multi year history of this article, in terms of people wanting to delete and keep it?
      • Yes, since I have been involved in quite a few of these discussion over the course of the last few years myself. Melicans (talk, contributions) 04:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)Yes[reply]
    • Kww: I cannot believe that you really think that all 40+ refs are worthless. I'm guilty of hyperbole in this very AfD myself, so I can't fault you much. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should believe it, PF. Whether you agree with me or not, I'm not exaggerating my beliefs. The identity of the designer should probably get added as a note to the list entry, but none of the rest of the material has a place here.—Kww(talk) 04:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Which pokemon was chosen as the anime mascot of Japan? I know one was chosen by one of the prime ministers but forgot which one. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Still gets about 200 views per day. Will be useful for folk who want a richer understanding of the fantasy universe they play in, or parents who want to tell consistent stories to their younger children, etc. Fair enough a few editors don't like it, existing references only just about establish notability (IMO) and better references don't seem easy to find on the web, but it seems a harmless article so it may be better for those who want to destroy it to just take if off their watchlists rather than deprive thousands of readers of an interesting article. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow, I've rarely seen WP:HARMLESS and WP:ITSUSEFUL invoked so literally; a "keep" that will most certainly be discarded. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For those who like their article size, edit this discussion and look at the top. This AfD discussion alone is longer than many articles at a whopping 37 KB! Raymie Humbert (t • c) 18:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it's only three days old. That's good. It means it's drawing in new opinions, instead of the usual suspeccts. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:33, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well for those who are intrested the current tally as of August 2nd is 2: Delete 12 Redirect and 13 keep. Consensus seems to split here and by no means is this based on a vote I know. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numbers don't really matter. Because some people just say generic responses, which don't count towards consensus AT ALL. The things that matter are the people who say WHY they want it to be deleted/kept, and go into detail on how the article does or doesn't fit the criteria for inclusion. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close, redirect to [List of Pokémon (1–20)#Bulbasaur], and indef-protect the redirect. per SoCalSuperEagle. Seems like the simplest solution. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's "simplest" isn't always the right thing. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 03:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this case, simplest follows policy, given all current evidence. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((Rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron, with no explanation as to why this article should be rescued and how that could happen (per ARS instructions). SnottyWong ^soliloquize 13:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Pokémon (1–20)#Bulbasaur - Reliable sources do not exist to warrant a full article on this subject. The information provided in the list article is more than sufficient. If there is a history of this article being recreated inappropriately by IP's, then protecting the redirect might be appropriate. SnottyWong ^gossip 14:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is a well-referenced, well-written, and well-developed article, with numerous reliable sources for each of the sections that deal with real-world information, namely Development and Reception, making it pass WP:NOTE by several kilometers. Those editors who insist that only delete arguments are according to policy are, to assume good faith, going by an older state of the article. Arguments that it's time to "put a stake through" this are not arguments made in good faith, but based on emotions left over from prior arguments. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, has everybody actually seen the article lately? People have been adding to it. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the AFD opened, these changes have been made. Mainly wikilink and reference cleanup, with a trivia point about a horse and a misrepresentation of a study about children's cognition removed.—Kww(talk) 17:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note This AFD is some 10 kb longer than the article (42 kb v. 32 kb). Bulbasaur as an article could stand to be SPLIT soon given the size restrictions forthcoming. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 23:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Considerable notability. Notability is really the only thing in question here, and all other points brought up by Deleter have been refuted. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• ?Please point me at any of my points that have been refuted. If you can show that all of my points have been refuted, I'll switch to "keep".—Kww(talk) 00:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – After looking at the Reception references, I think there's enough there for notability and coverage for a separate article. However, I will note that being a former Featured Article (which was 4 1/2 years ago when the FA standards were significantly lower) should not have any bearing, but rather what is currently in the article and what may be out there which is not yet in the article. –MuZemike 02:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In looking, I can see that more references deal more specifically with Bulbasaur than the nominator suggests. Being in the top 10 adds to reception; the description of him versus the other two starters, while comparing him to them, does talk specifically about Bulbasaur. The Ohio thing really does reek of game guide content. Both IGN sources and both GamesRadar sources are fine. The "children's favourite section", while an unnecessary split, has clearly notable content. I think that Bulbasaur is getting the third degree; at this point, more and more sources have been popping up, and I don't think it's necessary to put a higher standard on the character than other character articles. I figure it's fair to keep. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete, hold the salt: I see that most of the sources are not necessarily acceptable, but there is no way of predicting the future. There could be more useful information later on, there could not be. They could make a movie about Bulbasaur for all we know! Just cull out the crud (primary episode sources, pointless reception) and bring in what's notable to Bulbasaur's articlette on the list page. I could care less about the page, but unsuspecting visitors might wonder the importance of one starter over others, simply because it's a classic and #001. 2Ð ℳǣ$₮ℝʘ ^{talk, sign} 18:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep: Since this article was first nominated, many more WP:RS have been provided which clearly establish notability. Although many of the sources aren't independent, they are considered reliable for providing information; there are enough independent sources to establish notability. --138.110.206.150 (talk) 19:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there seems to be enough notability and coverage within the Reception and legacy section to warrent its own article, praise goes to the editors working on finding these additional sources in order to save the article. Salavat (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Who are you praising? No sources have been added since the nomination.—Kww(talk) 20:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, several editors and I have been working to "save" it for a couple of years now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[18][19] These are reliable third party sources discussing the subject. They have been added since the nom. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 01:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missed those in the noise of reference format editing. Yes, they are sources. Not that they say anything non-trivial. An op-ed piece on a game site is reliable only for sourcing the opinion of the game site, which is of no importance whatsoever. The scientific study reports the opinion of one anonymous child. Add those two references together, and you still get nothing of any merit or value. That's the problem with the "keep" arguments here: people are counting references, and not doing any analysis of what those references say. The reliable sources provide essentially no information, but they are being used as a justification for an article based on primary sources.—Kww(talk) 03:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because they cover gaming does not mean that their opinion is irrelevant. You'd have a good point if the source was a Pokémon fan site, but it isn't - it's a reputable gaming web site that is cited for its opinion frequently. Not to make assumptions of bad faith, but you seem to be applying a harsher burden for this article than someone would normally. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Agree with Hippo; Kww does seem to be applying a harsh standard. (I won't accuse him of double-standards because I'm not looking at any other AfDs he has initiated.) Besides that, I have nothing to say which hasn't already been said by keepers. --Gwern (contribs) 08:12 5 August 2010 (GMT)
  • Ain't no Hippo, son! - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 10:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Kww is asking for 3rd party sources on parts of the article that can't have 3rd party sources due to copyright. In such cases, official material is considered the best source, even though they are "affiliated" with the subject. Plus Google shows half a million results for bulbasaur, which demonstrates the magnatude of bulbasaur's cutural impact on the world; heck, a lot of important real people don't have that many results. —CodeHydro 14:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with popularity second next to Pikachu, not to mention the fact that it is another long withstanding Pokémon of main characters such as Ash and May. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I could care less what we do with it, but Kww has a point, with the fact that most of the sources are invalid. Change it to a redirect, perhaps, or keep it. It's not as if most of the stuff in the article is necessary for people to understand what a Bulbasaur is. 2Ð ℳǣ$₮ℝʘ ^{talk, sign} 14:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nominatin withdrawn brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Said al-Muragha[edit]

Said al-Muragha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Unable to find any reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. There may be sources in his native language but I have been unabl to locate any. His Arab Wikipedia page is also unsourced. This WP:BLP has remained unsourced for nearly five years. J04n(talk page) 14:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 14:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 14:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have rewritten the article with references to verify the article and establish notability. Davewild (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawing nomination per rewrite by Davewild. J04n(talk page) 19:53, 31 July 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 Nomination withdrawn. I'm already relisting enough AFDs today so since there are no "delete" !votes and the editor who prodded the article hasn't chimed, I'll just close it. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romulan starship[edit]

Romulan starship (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 removed the prod from this article because the nominator didn't use an edit summary. The original prod rationale was Non-canon and speculative arguments, as well as a number of terms that appear to have been simply invented.. I am neutral at the moment. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This can be cleaned up, and there are plenty of third-party RS'es for Romulan starships. i.e., Google Scholar has plenty of mentions. It's already a de facto list article, in that it combines multiple different fictional elements into one article that spans multiple iterations of the Star Trek franchise. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I found the article an interesting read and I don't have the same distaste for "cruft" as some other editors do. However, lately I have been wondering whether articles such as this one would be better off on Wikia. Many of their wikis have a higher tolerance for such "fan speculation" and creativity then we do. When reading this I almost thought I was at Memory Alpha. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntary Content Rating[edit]

Voluntary Content Rating (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)

Promo for non-notable proposal Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as spam - or merge to Content-control software. --MelanieN (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spinach Popeye Iron Decimal Error Myth[edit]

Spinach Popeye Iron Decimal Error Myth (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 article is based entirely on an article in the Internet Journal of Criminology[20] (a journal that just so happens to be edited by the author of the paper, which may explain how something with nothing to do with criminology was published in the journal). This might warrant a one line mention in Popeye or Spinach, but a whole article on the back of one obscure journal article is not how we do things. Fences&Windows 14:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 14:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 14:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Definitely seems to fail WP:N to me. No sources other than the one, that I can find at least. Also quite WP:POV... GorillaWarfare ^talk 14:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - if the article is kept, the title should be changed to something that makes sense, not a phrase that is nearly incomprehensible. LadyofShalott 15:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails general notability and, flying my own colors, reads like WP:JIBBERJABBER. Eddie.willers (talk) 19:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Generally incomprehensible, and certainly not notable. One reference, even in a reliable publication, does not notability make.Nitack (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Myth Kook No Ref Trivia. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and rename to something more sensible, but it needs a serious rewriting (including the Internet Journal of Criminology plug). The subject is notable, and there's been stuff written on it (in sources such as BMJ no less) and you can find this myth featured on University pages. I don't know how you can say this stuff isn't referenced, since it obviously is. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 05:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the claim this error is an urban myth (which is what this article is about) is based entirely on one article in an obscure journal, which has received no further coverage. The topic of the supposed iron content of spinach is already covered at Spinach#Spinach in popular culture and Popeye#Spinach, including a reference to this article. We do not need a whole article about it, which essentially serves to advertise Mike Sutton and his journal. Fences&Windows 13:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and theory of Newtonian gravity can be traced back to one article as well. That only one article is the source of the myth isn't important, what is important is that the myth is notable, and that several later sources do cover it (which establishes both WP:V and WP:N). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. There are multiple myths and stories about the origin of the claimed high content of iron in spinach. The one I was familiar with was that the amount of iron in spinach was originally measured from dried spinach (which has only 10% of the mass of normal fresh spinach, thus corresponding to the 10 times exaggeration). I don't think the one myth described in this article is so famous that it warrants its own article. In fact, the story I was aware of is much more popular (at least in my native language). As such, this is much better off to be mentioned in the spinach and popeye articles. Nageh (talk) 13:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I don't see how this warrants its own article. A brief mention in the spinach article would suffice. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 15:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Metre. The consensus is that the subject does not warrant an article in its own right, but that it does deserve a mention in the Metre article. Please note that the article was redirected to Redefinition of the metre in 1983. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the Deletion Review, I ackowledged that my original close was incorrect.

The result of the discussion should have been No concensus -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redefinition of the Metre in 1983[edit]

Redefinition of the Metre in 1983 (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)

POV fork of Speed of light, created for material removed from there by consensus. Previously PRODed but prod tag removed without reason. title non-notable in its own right, material belongs at Speed of light or Metre JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article is in poor shape because it is an insufficiently detailed treatment of its subject. It is intended to be a detailed discussion of the 1983 redefinition of the metre, the reasons for that redefinition, the practical implementation of the new methodology, and the ramifications both practical and philosophical. That goal is not a POV fork, but an amplification of the discussion in the article Speed of light. Unfortunately, this article has simply been transferred from that article, which had a rather superficial treatment of the topic, and made into a full article with only a few modifications. The decision to make here is whether this article is ready to stand on its own and be more fully developed by normal editing, or deleted and resubmitted in a more complete form later on. Brews ohare (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I had begun an article along these lines at this link. Brews ohare (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is simply not enough to say on the subject for it to merit its own article: it is not a subject in its own right, and is already treated in metre. Physchim62 (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was enough of a subject in its own right to prompt this 5 full page article at the time:
    • Tom Wilkie (1983-10-27). "Time to remeasure the metre". New Scientist. pp. 258–263.
  • As well as this 2 page precursory coverage a fortnight earlier:
    • G. W. E. Beekman (1983-10-13). "Hunt for the speed of light". New Scientist. pp. 101–102.
  • And all of these journal articles and book chapters:
    • P Giacomo (October 1983). "The new definition of the metre". European Journal of Physics. 4 (4): 190. Bibcode:1983EJPh....4..190G. doi:10.1088/0143-0807/4/4/001.
    • B. W. Petley (1983). "New definition of the metre". Nature. 202 (5916): 373–376. Bibcode:1983Natur.303..373P. doi:10.1038/303373a0.}
    • Pierre Giacomo (March 1983). "Laser Frequency Measurements and the Redefinition of the Meter". IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement. 32 (1). Braunschweig, Germany: 244–246. doi:10.1109/TIM.1983.4315052. ISSN 0018-9456.
    • K. M. Evenson (1983). "Frequency Measurements from the Microwave to the Visible, the Speed of Light and the Redefinition of the Meter". In P. H. Cutler; A. A. Lucas (eds.). Quantum Metrology and Fundamental Physical Constants. NATO AS1 Series B-98. New York: Plenum Press.
  • It's remained enough of a subject since to warrant this conference paper some years later:
    • K. M. Evenson (1994). T. W. Hansch; M. Inguscio (eds.). A History of Laser Frequency Measurements (1967-1983): The Final Measurement of the Speed of Light and the Redefinition of the Meter. Frontiers in Laser Spectroscopy : Varenna on Lake Como, Villa Monastero 23 June–3 July 1992 (Proceedings of the International School of Physics). ISBN 9780444819444.
  • A quick search for sources turns up the original papers on the science underpinning this from the Boulder Group, as cited in the references section of a summary written by David R. Lide of NIST in 2002:
    • D. A. Jennings; C. R. Pollock; F. R. Petersen; R. E. Drullinger; K. M. Evenson; J. S. Wells; J. L. Hall; H. P. Layer (1983). "Direct frequency measurement of the I2-stabilized He-Ne 473-THz (633-nm) laser". Optics Letters. 8 (3): 136–138. Bibcode:1983OptL....8..136J. doi:10.1364/OL.8.000136. ((cite journal)): Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
    • C. R. Pollock; D. A. Jennings; F. R. Petersen; J. S. Wells; R. E. Drullinger; E. C. Beaty; K. M. Evenson (1983). "Direct frequency measurements of transitions at 520 THz (576 nm) in iodine and 260 THz (1.15 µm) in neon". Optics Letters. 8 (3): 133–135. Bibcode:1983OptL....8..133P. doi:10.1364/OL.8.000133. ((cite journal)): Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  • As well as this:
    • "Documents Concerning the New Definition of the Meter". Metrologia. 19: 163–177. 1984. Bibcode:1984Metro..19..163.. doi:10.1088/0026-1394/19/4/004.
  • Lide is, like others, is specifically addressing the laser measurement of the speed of light and the definition and redefinition of the metre:
    • David R. Lide (2002). "Speed of Light from Direct Frequency and Wavelength Measurements". A century of excellence in measurements, standards, and technology. CRC Press. pp. 191–193. ((cite book)): Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
  • Uncle G (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a thematic multi-focus, interdisciplinary and clear presentation, in this overall-view to be referenced from different angles/lemmas. Help amplifying and keep! Gerhardvalentin (talk) 14:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or move to the metre article. I think John is wrong to say that this is a POV fork as the material was not removed for POV reasons, rather the reason was that the speed of light article was becoming too long and the consensus was that we could do without the excessive detail about the redefinition of the metre. Count Iblis (talk) 15:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • a POV fork arise when a new article is created for content removed from another article by consensus, as happened at Speed of light. In addition the title clearly indicates a sub-topic of metre, or not even that - "definition on the metre" might be that, and even that would not merit its own article. I agree though that this content would have been better considered for inclusion in Metre rather than a new article (though I suspect as it stands there is too much detailed content for that too).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that Blackburne has a misreading of the meaning of POV fork: such a fork is an attempt to duck a controversy by starting a new article to present an alternative viewpoint. The POV concept does not refer to an article intended (as is this one) to expand upon a sub-topic. Such articles are common on WP. Brews ohare (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The argument that this is too detailed for the Speed of Light article seems valid. It isn't as clear that it couldn't be in the metre article, but that article is a broad overview of a number of items, and including all this material may be over-weighting this particular aspect, so a separate article seems like a good choice. Let this one improve, and sometime in the future, revisit whether this should continue as a stand-alone or should be merged in metre.--SPhilbrickT 15:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - terrible, but also terribly notable. Intended. Kayau Voting IS evil 15:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Metre. That article is not very crowded right now, so I can't see why this material must be kept at a separate article rather than there. A. di M. (formerly Army1987) (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea of merging the article with Metre should be shelved for the moment. Ideally this article on the 1983 decision should evolve into something more interesting and more extensive as editors are given the time to amend it. After this evolution it will be clearer whether a merge would benefit the Metre article, or perhaps constitute too large a digression. Brews ohare (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, that is the reverse of our normal procedure: we should only have a seperate article if it becomes obvious that the metre article cannot support a reasonably complete discussion of the matter. If people think there is material to be merged (I don't), then it should be merged, but there is no reason for this article to exist. Physchim62 (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, merge relevant content in the metre article. It certainly does not warrant it's own article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I started this article to remove unnecessary detail from the Speed of light article. I am not sure that the metre article will benefit from this level of detail being added to it. It is a specialist subject representing an important change in the way that length was regarded in metrology an deserves its own article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the 1983 redefinition of the metre and not any of the many other redefinitions of SI units over the ages. This is a topic which should be discussed in the unit article, not in a separate article. Physchim62 (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This particular definition removed a physical constant from the list of basic standards and placed it outside the reach of measurement in that system of units. There is a philosophical issue here about reduction of the number of basic units. There is also some subtlety in understanding replacement of the unit of length with a defined speed and the unit of time. These matters would take the Metre article rather far afield. A decision on merge at this moment is premature, but already the article looks too long and too far ranging to include in Metre. Brews ohare (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the last time, no the redefinition did not do such thing. It fixed the value of that constant (or "set the scale" between time and space). It's not "outside of the reach of measurement", it's just pointless to measure (you already know the answer of what your measurement should be, if you read any number other than 299,792,458 m/s, you need to recalibrate either your ruler or your clock or both), just as it is pointless to measure the refractive index of vacuum. "Setting the refractive index of vacuum to 1" did not "remove a physical constant from the list of basic standards", whatever that phrase is suppposed to mean. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • So did the 1948 redefinition of the ampere which removed the magnetic permeability of vacuum, and so on, and so forth. A. di M. (formerly Army1987) (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is the objection to having this article? We would still expect to get an appropriate level of discussion in the unit articles but this article could give more detail. What is the problem with that? It allows WP to contain even more information in a well-structured way. Those that do not like it or are not interested need not edit it, or even look at it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It gives undue weight to the topic. We don't need articles on specific redefinitions of unit, that stuff should be covered in the unit's article. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are misapplying the notion of undue weight. The notion of undue weight applies to points of view, and is an issue relating to neutrality in disputes. It is not a notion dealing in how much detail Wikipedia might cover a technical subject. In fact, we have quite the opposite notion. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia, and we have no cost and space limitations that cause us to think about what verifiable information we have to leave out of articles in order to keep publication costs down. Uncle G (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Headbomb. If there was a significant controversy over the 1983 redefinition of the metre, it should be dealt with in section of the metre article: to create a separate article suggests that there is significant material which cannot be covered in the metre article, and consensus is that this is not the case. It is indeed a WP:POVFORK to suggest that the 1983 redefinition was any more significant than the other redefinitions of units which occur from time to time. The 1983 redefinition is less significant than the 1960 redefinition (which switched the length of a bar for a wavelength of light), and is far less significant than the planned redefinition of the kilogram (described at length in that article). Physchim62 (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are misapplying the notion of POV forking. A "POV fork" requires a point of view, which is absent here, this being an simple event in the history of science, not a viewpoint. Having a summary style article for a sub-topic does not make a subject "more significant". Indeed, most of the articles in Wikipedia are on things that most people would regard as insignificant. Nor is "controversy" required for an article. There are plenty of articles on asteroids, species of beetle, towns in the United States, and so forth that are neither controversies nor widely regarded as significant by the world. This is an encyclopaedia. We don't deal in significance and scandalworthiness. We deal in human knowledge. If there's properly documented, peer reviewed, and acknowledged human knowledge to be had, we have it. If there's enough of it for a topic or a sub-topic to support a full article, then we allow a full article. Arguments that you, personally, think redefinitions to be insignificant should be taken up with the people in the world at large who have covered them in depth, such Tom Wilkie and David R. Lide cited above (and many others), not with Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge into metre. The second sentence in the current form of the article ("...explores the background and ramifications of this change in definition at greater length than seems desirable in the article Speed of light") makes it appear very much like an unacceptable content fork. Article forking should happen as an article grows too large, not as a means of solving disagreements between editors. However, this article appears to have been created in large part to contain information that one editor wants to add in but which consensus is clearly against - such article forking is not an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors. If the information is merged first into the metre article, then the usual and proper of process of content forking can take place. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is clearly notable and requires a detailed explanation. More detailed than appropriate for the metre or speed of light article. Hence the need for this article. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Didn't some folks go around and around on similar arguments at Speed of light, culminating in an [arbitration case?] Or is this a separate and distinct issue than the scientific issues then at issue? Should there be separate articles on every redefinition of the candela, the ohm, the ampere, etc? Edison (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is part of the aftermath of the ARBCOM case yes. There should not be separate articles on any redefinition of any units, because they are are all equally notable/unotable. The 1983 redefinition of the meter is no more special than any other redefinition of any other units. The place to treat these redefinitions are in the relevant unit's article (case in point, the Kilogram's possible future redefinition), not on their own articles. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but not all constants are equally notable. The speed of light has much greater public visibility and interest than, say, μ₀. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the general public, the density of water is even more important than c, and yet there's no article specifically about the older definitions of the litre and the imperial gallon. A. di M. (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • More important, but not as interesting. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Both of which arguments are based upon fallacy. This is an encyclopaedia that is still being written. What we don't have is not an indicator of anything to do with a topic; and what is personally interesting is not how we decide what goes in and what does not. What the world has found interesting, enough to properly document in in depth, is our guide. Basing Wikipedia's article inclusion and exclusion criteria upon what a random group of Wikipedia editors personally thought to be interesting at any one time would lead to chaos. Basing Wikipedia's article inclusion and exclusion criterion upon fame, similarly, leads to stuff that readers would come to an encyclopaedia for precisely because it isn't famous (such as asteroids, species of beetles, and, yes, the detailed and documented scientific history and advances in research that led to an SI unit being redefined) being left out. Our sole guide is, and has to be, how extensively something is documented in the reliable literature of the world. If the world at large has extensive documentation of the redefinition of the metre and fails to document the redefinition of the ampere (not that I believe that to be actually true — I suspect that people here haven't checked thoroughly enough.), then that's what Wikipedia must reflect, because reflecting human knowledge as it actually is, is our job, however uneven or lop-sided we may think the world to be. We're not here to correct lop-sidedness or unevenness in human knowledge, merely to collect and systematize human knowledge as it stands. Uncle G (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• A wiser approach? As the article develops further it will be very clear whether it has no content, or overlapping content, or merge-able content. In fact, that discussion can begin right now on the Talk page of that article; discussion about the present content and what could be added or omitted or changed or merged. There is no violation of general WP policy in the abstract to justify deletion of this article. Just follow normal Talk page hashing out of such details by technically inclined editors, and let the chips fall where they may. Brews ohare (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The change itself has received sufficient media attention to be notable of itself. TimothyRias (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• When I started this article it was intended to allow detailed discussion of this topic that, in my opinion, was not suitable for the Speed of light or even the Metre articles. I also hoped to move some of the detailed discussion and disagreement from the Speed of light article on this subject to a more appropriate place where those interested could discus the issues involved.

  It was not my intention to start a POV fork and in particular it was not my intention to create an article in which an alternative or personal POV could be presented, or in which the Speed of light arbcom decision on tendentious editing could be circumvented. See the article talk page for more discussion of this subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The current article seems to meet these criteria. Now that the article exists non-productive discussion has ended. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge: This article was begun as a repository for contentious material about the 1983 redefinition of the metre that did not belong in the Speed of light article. The long, long argument over treatment of that subject in the Speed of light article, with a small minority arguing against a strong consensus, led to an arbitration that resulted in severe sanctions on two editors. The contention over that subject was not reflected in real world literature on that subject; it was peculiar to Wikipedia. One of those editors is now free of his topic ban and has resumed that argument, joined by a small minority. This article, if it continues to exist as a separate article, will be the new battleground. The 1983 redefinition of the metre belongs in the Metre article. Every prior redefinition of the metre received extensive coverage in scientific journals, just like the 1983 redefinition. Wikipedia, however, is an encyclopedia, not a place to review journal articles on a subject. An appropriate, encyclopedic treatment of the 1983 redefinition, like all the prior redefinitions, belongs in the article on the Metre, and not elsewhere. Any material that is too long to fit in the Metre article does not belong elsewhere in Wikipedia, which treats subjects in encyclopedic summary style. Like all Wikipedia articles, the Metre article should refer interested readers to other sources that discuss the 1983 redefinition, and other aspects of the metre, in greater depth. While the first author of this article did not intend it to be a POV fork from the Metre article, it inevitably will be one, or at least some editors will try to make it one. My opinion would still be that discussion of the 1983 redefinition belongs only the Metre article even if there was not a history of contention among Wikipedians (but not in the real world) over the topic.—Finell 12:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ahem:
    • POV fork from the Metre article, it inevitably will be one, or at least some editors will try to make it one.
  • In other words you're prejudging the issue, rather then being prepared to see how it develops. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest that you actually read Wikipedia:Summary style. It directly contradicts your argument that sub-topics should be somehow outside of the encyclopaedia. I also suggest that you read our Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia policy. You appear to be applying the reasoning that is applied by editors of paper encyclopaedias, to exclude knowledge of extensively documented subjects on space/size grounds. We don't have publication size limitations. If "every prior redefinition of the metre received extensive coverage in scientific journals", then (presuming that you can back that up by citing those journals) you've just made a cogent argument for every such event in the history of science warranting its own article, and metre having lots of summary-style sub-articles. Good! We should do that, then, and accurately reflect the extent and depth of human knowledge on the subject. Readers come to encyclopaedias to learn about obscure but extensively documented scientific subjects. It's our job to make an encyclopaedia that serves them.

    The fact that you think yourselves incapable of using the usual means of dispute resolution to stop editors from making articles on science subjects into battlegrounds is nothing to do with AFD, and we don't use AFD as a means for clubbing other editors over the head. If you've got a problem at arbitration, solve it at arbitration. The focus at AFD is the article, and what sources have to say about a subject. You've just stated that multiple independent reliable sources document these subjects directly, and in depth. Correct application of deletion policy is that we therefore have an article. The logic is that simple. Disputes over actually writing it belong elsewhere, and AFD is not the means for stopping or resolving those disputes. AFD is not cleanup, nor is it a big hammer. Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is a perfectly reasonable venue to use when you want to rectify the weird idiosyncracies such as material being on its own article when it should be merged into its natural location. This should be in meter, not on its own, just like all other redefinitions of units (which BTW, all have plethoras of sources as well, since redefining units has a lot of impact in science and elsewhere), like the future redefinition of the kilogram is treated in kilogram, and not on its own. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb, this is merely an expansion of a point made in both the speed of light article and the metre article; that logic alone dictates it needs its own article, even if length didn't already require it. By your logic we shouldn't have subsection articles at all. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logic alone would suggest that it doesn't need an article of its own, given that no other redefinition has its own article. Logic would suggest that the topic could be adequately dealt with in the article on the unit itself (in this case, metre, which is hardly bursting at the seams with detail for the moment). There is simply not enough we can say, in an encyclopedic manner, about this topic for it to justify its own article: maybe New Scientist got five pages out of it, but it covered many more topics in that space than the simple redefinition of the metre.

And, Uncle G, a little bit of common sense would have lead you to discover that this topic, and the disruptive editing of one editor in particular, has already been the subject of an ArbCom case, that the article comes to AfD less than a month after that disruptive editor restarted editing speed of light (after a ban from all physics-related topics which ArbCom, in its infinite "wisdom", decided to cut short instead of make permanent), and so that maybe your two-bit pontificating was better off elsewhere. Physchim62 (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Physchim62, New Scientist did run a 5 page article on the subject. Title = "Time to remeasure the metre", which gives some indication of what it was all about. :-) --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Michael, that is it's title: have you actually read the artcle? Physchim62 (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Covers pretty much the same material as here (except the last section, which you see I'm inclined to remove). --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Friendly request. Let's focus purely on the article in question and not restart disputes from the past like the ArbCom case when it is not relevant in the current situation. If anyone is behaving in a disruptive way right now that is an issue to deal with now, otherwise let's just shut up about "disruptive editors" who are not actually behaving in a disruptive way. Count Iblis (talk) 15:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hear, hear. The past is past. Let's improve this article and have an end of it all. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why not just replace the "article" with #REDIRECT[[Metre]] and be done with it? Physchim62 (talk) 18:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ever heard of subsection articles? --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have actually, believe it or not! My experience is that subsection articles grow out of subsections that become too long: they should not be confused with WP:POVFORKs, which exist solely to promote a point of view for which an editor could not obtain consensus in the relevant main article. Metre already has a discussion of the 1983 redefinition, which could certainly be improved by a reference to the New Scientist article and a better distinction between definition and realization, and which is ready and waiting for constructive edits. Physchim62 (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The POV fork issue has been dealt with already a number of time, but I guess you didn't hear that? And the metre already has this detail in, since this article already appears as a subsection article in it. --Michael C. Price ^talk 19:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• comment (in reply to both Count Iblis and Michael C. Price). Despite it's title the article was created as a fork of Speed of light, to contain content removed from there by consensus. If you look at the article now you'll see that it is indeed a fork of speed of light, mostly about the speed of light with particularly a long section at the end consisting of fringe speculation and interpretation, of precisely the sort that Brews ohare has repeatedly tried to insert at Speed of light, both before and since the ArbCom case - content based on his POV. So a POV fork.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for removal included the complaints of too much detail and that the speed of light article was too large. So, a subsection article is entirely appropriate. As for the last section, it has been deleted. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict):

• Friendly reply: An important preliminary issue, before several editors devote substantial time and effort working on this article, is to decide whether this article should exist as a separate article. The 1983 redefinition of the metre occurred 27 years ago, and was preceded by years extensive work and published studies. It is was an important advance in metrology and an important development in the history of the metre and the SI. In the world of genuine scientific and technical scholarship, it has been uncontroversial throughout those 27 years. Until this article was created yesterday (30 July), in a momentary lapse of judgment by one of Wikipedia's better physics editors, Wikipedia articles gave appropriate encyclopedic treatment to the 1983 redefinition in the appropriate articles, including Speed of light among others. There have been no recent developments in the real world that warrant expanded treatment, either in a separate article or in the articles where the subject is already discussed. The 5-page article in New Scientist, to which a few editors refer, was a popular account of this development that was published in 1983, when it was news to the general public. Encyclopedias, including Wikipedia, cover in a few printed pages subjects to which entire textbooks are devoted. That is what encyclopedias do, and in doing so perform a valuable public service. Wikipedia's treatment of the 1983 redefinition is adequately treated in existing Wikipedia articles (although there may be some room for genuine improvement), does not warrant substantial expansion in the existing articles (although some material might profitably be added), and most definitely does not justify a separate article. Whatever appropriate revisions might be made to the existing articles do not include the radical change in emphasis or point of view that a few editors are advocating.

So why all the fuss about this subject here and now? The reason has nothing to do with treatment of the subject in real world scholarship, and everything to do with the history of this issue in Wikipedia. That is the only reason that I recite this history, which I lived through. In an episode that is unique to Wikipedia (that is, one that does not mirror the real world), over 2 years ago (NOTE: I have not checked the dates, so my approximations may be off by a several months) a well-meaning editor with an obsessive personality (Brews ohare) could not get his mind around the idea that the speed of light could be a defined term in one system of measurement (although not others) and that this made the speed of light artificial or tautological, even though all systems of measurement are based on defined values. He argued and argued and argued relentlessly for over a year, against a substantial majority (i.e., consensus) of physicists who patiently explained the science to him, that the Speed of light article should substantially change its treatment of the 1983 redefinition to something very different from that subject's treatment in real world literature; he would not listen to reason and tirelessly kept coming up with new arguments. This argument dominated the talk page. Later, this well-meaning editor was joined by a mean-spirited physics troll, with a long history of sanctions for disruptive behavior, who argued that the 1983 redefinition of the metre was a conspiracy by "establishment" scientists to "sweep under the rug" the "fact" that modern physics in general and relativity in particular is just a big lie (a point of view that this individual also publishes on crank science web sites). Along the way, this duo picked up a few supporters, some of whom are not well educated in physics. (These individuals will doubtlessly disagree with my characterizations.) This disruption of the Speed of light article and talk page, especially the mean-spirited disruption by the troll, led to an arbitration. The arbitrators' decision unanimously topic banned the two protagonists from physics for one year and imposed behavioral probation. That decision ended the controversy over this issue. (These individuals disagree with the arbitrators' decision.)

As a result of his productive editing of articles in other areas (which I have praised and supported), the well-meaning obsessive editor's one-year physics topic ban was commuted by the arbitrators before it expired. He returned to the the Speed of light article and talk page, and he picked up from where he left off. Apparently in an effort to get this argument off the Speed of light talk page, Martin Hogbin, an editor for whom I have the highest respect, created Redefinition of the Metre in 1983. That is the only reason it was created. The 1983 redefinition has not warranted a separate article in the 27 years since it occurred (or throughout Wikipedia's entire existence until yesterday), does not have one in other general encyclopedias, and should not have one in Wikipedia now. The resumed argument on the Speed of light talk page was an annoyance, but there was an obvious solution: refuse to join in the argument, since all the points raised now were discussed and resolved over a year ago, and nothing that is new in substance has been raised. Creation of this article was a mistake, and this is the place to correct that mistake.—Finell 20:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finell, I recall the problem, and I supported the ban for the same reason you did. .... But we have to put history behind us. We can't argue, Brews was wrong then, so he must be wrong now. What specific criticism of the current article do you have? Are there any cranky anti-relativity statements in it? Is it misleading? Arguing that the article didn't exist before is not a reason for saying it shouldn't exist now - new articles get created all the time, in case you hadn't noticed. :-) Finally, of course the 1983 redefinition was uncontroversial in the world of scholarship - let's keep it that way here by explaining it in such painful detail that even a moron could understand. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already commented on the new article's talk page. Most of the article's content, when I looked at it, was about the speed of light itself, which belongs only in the Speed of light article (if anywhere). Whatever content is actually about the 1983 redefinition will fit nicely in the Metre article, to the extent it is not already there and is a worthwhile addition, and that is where it belongs, together with all the prior redefinitions. That leaves no content for the new article, which is why the new article should not exist (or vice versa). I would love to put history behind us. History remained behind us while Brews was topic banned; no one perceived a need for this new article then. Now Brews is back, and the old history is thrust upon us. This has nothing to do with animus against Brews: I defended him in 2 or 3 post-arbitration enforcement proceedings, where I thought the topic ban was being interpreted against him unfairly (although his poor judgment in injecting physics into pure math articles and telling an opponent about his topic ban brought the proceedings on); I opposed shortening Brews' topic ban, and the Speed of light talk page is now reliving history because the ban was lifted. The new article was a good editor's bad idea of how to restore peace at Talk:Speed of light; it did not solve that problem, but did create a new organizational mess of misplaced and duplicative content. The mistake should be corrected, and the mess cleaned up, by deleting the new article and moving any worthwhile new content to the articles where it belongs. And then we can get back to improving Speed of light, provided we do not allow ourselves to be drawn into old arguments, and instead focus on that article's real needs. This whole exercise is a big waste of editors' time and effort, with organization detriment rather than content improvement for the encyclopedia overall.—Finell 23:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finell's logic applies much better to the trouble on the climate change articles. There you really have a problem caused by quite a few editors who can't accept that FOX NEWS is wrong and the peer reviewd scientific articles are correct about climate change. They are writing/contributing to articles on sceptics and invoking the BLP rules to defend POV edits on climate change. Yet, they are still tolerated on Wikipedia, and that is not going to change. Currently ArbCom is looking into this issue. But note that the Global Warming article is a featured article (it has been for a several years) despite a problem that Finell should agree is more than a thousand times worse than that posed by Brews. All this focus on one editor in this case is thus not warranted, it is contraproductive. Count Iblis (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprisingly given the history above the deleted section has been replaced by one as dubious in the current version, as the article continues to be used by Brews as a platform for his fringe views, which have little to do with the definition of the metre.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 01:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This ancient history has nothing to do with the present AfD other than the blindness and irritability it brings along with its inapplicable and inaccurate sagas. It's time to look at matters based upon what is before us, not to see a replay of imagined events. Brews ohare (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a topic of potential importance to readers of both metre and speed of light; a separate article may be the best way of packaging the information to make it easily accessible. Abtract (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to metre. This (very good) material explains how the metre is currently defined; it belongs in the article on the unit. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Smerge (Selectively merge) to Metre. An article on a unit of measurement should have summary coverage issues and controversies regarding of revisions, but does not need standalone articles about each revision. An encyclopedia article on the Ohm, for instance, does not need a separate article with minute descriptions of the many ways a column of mercury at a particular temperature was measured by Lord Rayleigh and his constant companion Mrs Sidgwick in the 1880's.[21]. Their 1880's work has 944 references at Google Books and has more justification for a stand-alone article than this issue, but does not tickle some Wikipedia editor's particular fancy in the way that this 1983 unit revision apparently does. Any unit could spawn numerous pointless subarticles delving into excess detail on its revisions, thereby giving undue weight to arcane issues which fascinate a few Wikipedia editors. The candela comes from the candle, which was a defined physical candle burning at a certain mass per hour, but with perhaps 30% difference between vendors, replaced by carefully chosen light bulbs, then by black body model, then by whatever. The variation of standard candles would have as much justification for a stand alone article, (24000 results 1880-1900)[22] as this 1983 meter revision, but an article about it would seem as unencyclopedic. Edison (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak merge to Metre. I fail to see why this information should be split off from the article metre. Instead, by a merger the metre article would hugely benefit in providing usable background information without referring the reader to a separate article, and metre is also not too long to justify a split. Proper organizing wrt. section ordering and naming should do it. Nageh (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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