< 14 September	16 September >

Guide to deletion

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Multiple Sculpture / Multilateral Sculpture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Multiple Sculpture / Multilateral Sculpture

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

Sculptor Rasto Hlavina (User:RHlav) has created an article about his own sculpture. I prodded it as advertising, and he contested it on the talk page, asserting that if we delete it, we are the "tool of crafty individuals" and "the pond in the game of pretension", and that we should leave the article "straight from the horse's mouth". Of course, that conflicts with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and WP:SPAM. Wikipedia is not a free webhost for artists to describe and promote their own work. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is it self-promoting, but it isn't even a coherent subject for an article. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 19:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable, no significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious advertising. Drewbug (talk) 20:49, 21 September 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.

Andreas Moritz[edit]

The result was deleted. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RisingTide[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY:No significant coverage. Mentioned in StorageMojo.com and StorageNewsletter.com. Celestra (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CORP. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Associated with Marc Fleischmann, which is a WP:AUTOBIO also up for AfD. I put the original COI message on his talk about this. Raymie (t • c) 23:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and respectfully request to keep the RsingTide page. I have added more references, including from Tom's Network Guide, Linux Magazin (the German one), and Linux Journal - which named an old release of our open source version "best visual of show" back in 2004. I also added a few product references. The RisingTide page now seems to contain more references, more substance and more notable mentions than quite a few other entries on Wikipedia. Please consider - from fall 2010 on, if you use Linux, you might be using a part of our software. Regards, Marcfl (talk) 05:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone please comment on my revised page w.r.t. the AfD process? Thanks much. Marcfl (talk) 23:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Marcfl. There are several issues here. Firstly, you are the article's author but also, as Marc Fleischman, the company's founder - this is a clear conflict of interest as set out in WP:COI. Secondly, your own company website, blogs, and internet forum postings are NOT considered reliable sources as per WP:RS and cannot be used to support the article's assertions. Thirdly, I cannot find evidence that the company is notable as your references (those that are in English and are reliable) don't seem to establish this as per WP:CORP. While your efforts at contributing to the global knowledge field in an obscure corner of computing are highly admirable and worthy of respect, there does not seem to be sufficient, independent, reliable, third-party, non-internet sources to back this up. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, Eddie, and for educating me. Please allow me to address your concerns in turn.

First, regarding WP:COI, in academia, usually one's own work is published, because the creators tend to know it best; quality is assured via verifyability, peer-reviews and references. Through that process, most academic publications are still considered more reliable than Wikipedia, although some articles here are fantastic. So perhaps focusing on that process might have some merits here, too. On the other hand, just waving the WP:COI moniker seems to also encourage counter-productive behavior, like fake third party contributions, etc. For these reasons alone, I hope alleging WP:COI doesn't suffice to have an article deleted.

Second, regarding WP:RS, I removed all but one references to the company website, blogs and open Internet forums (except for a pointer to the LIO WiKi, which I hope you agree is more helpful than "self-serving"), so I hope this addresses WP:RS. If you prefer me to just remove all such references without any thought regarding possible usefulness, I'll be happy to oblige.

Third, regarding WP:CORP, you might have noticed that I have added an english Linux Journal article that has coverage on our open source version as the "best visual demonstration" at Linux World, already back in 2004, which seems quite notable to me. I also cannot find strict rules prohibiting all foreign language articles, which would be unfortunate, as the Linux Magazine and Tom's Hardware/Networking serve as reliable sources to a rather large audience. Lastly, please also allow me to encourage consistency with your own standards - how can RisingTide not be acceptable, but, just e.g., Arteli (no references, very little information) is deemed adequate? The only differentiating argument here seems to circle back to WP:COI, which then might to doing a bit of a disservice to the quality of Wikipedia content in some cases. Perhaps WP:COI should therefore be used more sagaciously.

Last, while iSCSI might addmitedly seem a bit "obscure" to non-storage folks (e.g., see Talk:ISCSI itself), there are good reasons that, just e.g., HP acquired LeftHand (iSCSI cluster storage) for $360M (2008), Dell acquired EqualLogix (iSCSI SANs) for $1.4B (2008), and HP and Dell just recently fought over 3PAR (scalable IP SANs, notably with iSCSI) up to $2.4B. Evidenced by increasing valuations in this area, iSCSI is a technology ripe for mainstream, e.g., IDC projects iSCSI storage alone to be a $10B market in 2011 - with 70% (!) CAGR, so having an article in Wikipedia that covers its standard implementation in Linux doesn't seem entirely unreasonable (or "self-serving") to me.

Respectfully, Marcfl (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Conflict of interest is not grounds for having either an autobiography or an article about one's company deleted. I have worked with COI editors in the past to help them create more neutral articles. I think the reason notability and COI become confused is that subjects which are less notable (which have less significant coverage) are unlikely to be created by an independent editor. The problem with this article is simply notability as measured by significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Arguments around other articles with less notability or how notable this company will be in the future aren't really helpful. Anything which doesn't address the lack of notability, based on Wikipedia's established standards for notability, isn't likely to affect the outcome of the AFD discussion. If you are aware of any significant coverage of RisingTide, please share it with us before the discussion is closed in two days or so. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 20:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you clarified that we can eliminate WP:COI as a reason for deletion. I am amazed how quick you are to admit that Wikipedia doesn't consistently follows its own standards - that seems to make its quality rather unstable, which is exactly what you are trying to avoid. That said, let's focus on the alleged issue(s) at hand, WP:NOTABILITY as defined in WP:CORP.

First, let's examine the "Independence of Sources" per WP:CORP. The sources I referenced are (in alphabetic order):

Linux Journal
Linux Magazin (2 references)
LWN.net
Storage Newsletter (2 references)
StorageMojo
Tom's Networking Guide

Could you please kindly illuminate me/us which of those sources fail your independence criteria, and for which reason? Thank you very much.

Second, let's evaluate the "Depth of Coverage". WP:CORP defines the criteria for failing it as follows; I annotated each of them with a brief reason for meeting it:

"Sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules" - clearly n/a
"The publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories" - clearly n/a
"The season schedule or final score from sporting events" - clearly n/a
"Routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel" - clearly n/a
"Brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business" - clearly n/a
"Simple statements that a product line is being changed" - clearly n/a
"Routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season)" - clearly n/a
"Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources" - clearly n/a
"Passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization" - clearly n/a

Again, could you please kindly illuminate me/us why you think RisingTide might be failing one or more of these criteria, and for which reason? Thank you very much. Or, please kindly let me know what else I might be missing.

Lastly, since you confirmed that there are accepted articles on Wikipedia that are already of lower notability and/or quality than RisingTide, I'd love to work with you, like you have worked with other (COI) editors in the past, to help me (us!) create a "more neutral" article. Perhaps that would be more constructive for everyone. Thank you very much. Regards, Marcfl (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At a glance, it appears most of the press is either for LIO (great, create an article about LIO instead of RisingTide) or are blog posts/industry posts guessing about RisingTide due to it being in "stealth mode". tedder (talk) 21:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@marcfl: You are engaging in a practice that resembles what we call wikilawyering. You have not presented a source with significant coverage about which we might discuss reliability and independence and I'm not going to waste time evaluating the reliability or independence of sources which are not useful for establishing notability. The list you enumerate and refute concerning depth of coverage are examples of trivial coverage, it is not presented in the policy as being comprehensive and refuting those examples has no meaning. It should be fairly obvious looking at a source whether that source is merely mentioning the company in passing or if the source is providing substantial coverage. Please present a source which provides substantial coverage of your company. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear before - I have worked with editors who had COI issues to help them make more neutral articles. Those articles did not have notability problems, the editors had COI issues(leaving out derogatory facts, including unsourced details). Neutrality isn't the critical issue here, notability is. Celestra (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like the answer to my question which specific WP:CORP criteria the article is failing, is "none." Regards, Marcfl (talk) 23:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestra, please note that you first asked for "an independent source which talks about the company". When provided, you brought up WP:COI. Meanwhile, I have been improving the article, and included a number of references, expanding on your request. When I was trying to understand the Wikipedia guidelines and evaluate the article against them, to make sure I follow them, you are bringing up WP:Wikilawyering. It seems you might be more interested in finding arguments for deletion rather than trying to be helpful and improve the quality of an article that is already better than quite a few other ones here. If you helped improving the article, perhaps you might feel less like you are "wasting time." That said, some details:

Storage Newsletter, covers the key company facts, key people, key products, key partners and some results. That is not substantial coverage? What else are you looking for?
StorageMojo has some analysis on the company, it's background and market. Again, it seems to easily pass Wikipedia's own criteria.
Tom's Netwroking Guide covers our partnership with CPI and a high-availabilit product presented at CeBit 2010. Ditto.
One of the Linux Magazine articles was pretty exclusively about LIO (our open source version) on the PS/3, plus some background on RisingTide.
The Linux Journal named us (or LIO/PyX) as "best visual demonstration" of LinixWorld 2004 - how can that not be notable?

@Tedder, if LIO has sufficient coverage, I'd respectfully maintain RisingTide has too, as it is also covered in the articles. Plus, people might look for more background information on LIO... But if you feel an LIO article might be helpful, I'd gladly add one. However, it would not be nice to not go through that and then argue against some new lack of notability. Please advice. Thanks much! Regards, Marcfl (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, the answer to your question of "which criteria" is: those aren't criteria. Second, I started this AFD due to a lack of notability and I continue to ask for you to provide evidence of notability. I mentioned COI only to explain that it wasn't an issue so that you could focus on notability. I brought up wikilawyering because it distracts from our discussion of notability. I don't know how you came up with the understanding you have, but it doesn't matter - we are discussing notability, as shown by significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Celestra (talk) 00:06, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still sounds like the answer to which specific WP:CORP criteria the article is failing, is "none". Just, now "those aren't criteria"; yet you keep quoting WP:CORP - and I am trying to interpret it somehow. Look, clearly RisingTide is less notable than other companies (yet, we hope). Clearly, it is more notable than quite a few other companies on Wikipedia (I hope we at least agree on that one). It seems to me it's now, after adding 6 independent sources with 8 references (including a best demo of show), passing WP:CORP as it is spelled out, at the very minimum more so than many other companies here. If it still isn't, then please help me understanding why/where these sources are inadequate, specifically. Just asking for WP:CORP conformance and dismissing its own criteria (ok, "those aren't criteria") is really confusing. Thank you. Regards, Marcfl (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, other stuff exists has no bearing on this. Of the five sources you mentioned in your previous post, two (StorageNewsletter and StorageMojo) are the ones which were there when I nominated the article for deletion. I think both are less-than-significant coverage and the other editors to look at them so far seem to agree. The third, Tom's Networking Guide, as far as I can tell with a babelfish translation is a notice for some storage convention event. The fourth one, based on your summary, just has "some background". The last one was written four years before your company was founded, so it obviously doesn't provide significant coverage. The closest thing to significant coverage is the StorageNetworking.com article, 237 words, which mentions the founding year and the fact you are San Ramon based and includes some amount (94 words) of background on you. It doesn't mention how many employees you have or any other "key people", it doesn't go into your financial information or talk of your customers or competitiors. It does mention two partners. Overall, it seems to just tease the fact that you are coming out of stealth. The StorageMojo piece is longer, 489 words, but it is more about the technology than about the company. (The StorageMojo piece also may not be a reliable source, being an industry blog controlled by the author, but since it isn't significant coverage, that's moot.) Just for reference, this reply is 250-some words long. Regards, Celestra (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is a lack of any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Much of teh sourcing in the article that I reviewed discusses LIO. -- Whpq (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fractyl[edit]

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

Fictional character that appears not to pass WP:GNG, sources are all primary, no individual notability asserted. Normally would merge to character list, but no list appears to exist. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Was a convention exclusive character. Holds no notability and is only a footnote in the Beast Wars series. Sarujo (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to List of Predacons. Mathewignash (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then possibly redirect to Fractal which, being an important real-world concept, is immeasurably more important than an obscure and irrelevant fictional one. Reyk _YO! 04:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another TF article with questionable notability and poor excuses for "sources". Dwanyewest (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources to WP:verify notability. Needs third-party sources, not primary sources and unreliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Divebomb[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major Transformers character. Adding sources. Mathewignash (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if kept rename to Divebomb (Transformers), since this is not the primary usage of the term, it should be replaced by a dab page. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable, independent sources either originally, or added recently. No Notability established. Skinny87 (talk) 07:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wasn't aware a recently added source is not a valid source. However, if it is valid, then your reasoning is flawed and your vote should be ignored. Mathewignash (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't see a reliable source in any of the article's citations, just fan-sites and primary sources. Can you identify which one you are referring to, and why it fulfills WP:RS? That way we can have a specific discussion. Skinny87 (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, there are still no reliable sources in the article that talk about this particular character. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - To Predacons unless reliable sources that talk about this character can be found. --Divebomb (talk) 10:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete irresolvable sourcing problems, specifically, there aren't any. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability - Added another third party source today for more notability. Mathewignash (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which source would that be? I still can't see anything conferring independent notability. The only vaguely-sounding RS in the article is being used to cite that a certain toy of Divebomb was issued. Skinny87 (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Commment- Its been long established that transformers fansites, forums and some books [1] are unreliable sources of information. Dwanyewest (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dirge (Transformers)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For now since there's a lot more obvious deletion candidates. Dirge is less obscure than the ones I would nominate, and aside from the Beast Wars II guy and the Insecticon, they're all different versions of the conehead jet. The "no independent reliable sources" thing could be more due to the generally terrible quality of TF character articles than an actual lack of proper notability. NotARealWord (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major Transformers character. Adding sources. Mathewignash (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm taking NARW at his word that this is notable, it looks only marginally moreso than the others to me. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not quite certain that Dirge is notable, but I wouldn't nominate this for deletion while there are more suitable candidates. If necessary, can be renominated later. NotARealWord (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly looks notable to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divebomb (talk • contribs) 11:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead End (Transformers)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major Transformers character. Adding sources. Mathewignash (talk) 01:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite assertations of importance, no reliable, independent aources either presented in article, or found online, to assert notability. Skinny87 (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG. Sorely lacking in notability or educational value. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the above VOTE is from a BLOCKED sock puppet and should probably be ignored (sorry, the nomination was completely valid!, I pasted my orignal comment in the wrong place, I hope it's okay if I remove it.) Mathewignash (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user is indefinitely blocked, but not banned (though judging from the discussion at ANI, that may change soon). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Mathewignash (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm having trouble even finding these assertations of importance. Indeed the article implies several times this is not an important character: "not a major character in the comics", "not appearing in any [Fun Publications] fiction", "little is known about him so far" "does not appear in the film" ...and so on. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That line in the Fun Publications section is meant to just say he was talked about in one comic story, he didn't appear. Fun Publications is a smaller company with less than dozen issues so far. Lots of characters have NOT appeared in Fun Publications comics. I just added that line because he was mentioned in that last issue, but hasn't appeared yet in books by that company. He DID appear in many stories by Marvel Comics, Dreamwave and IDW, companies who produce many Transformers stories. Mathewignash (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - More fanboy-cruft to sift though. Game guides, toy guides, fan forums and the like are not reliable sources sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article is about a bunch of different characters that don't have much in common besides name. NotARealWord (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability whatsoever. --Divebomb (talk) 11:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IGNORE MY ABOVE VOTE. Redirect to Stunticon. --Divebomb (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No sources or assertion of notability.Dwanyewest (talk) 08:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- has had several incarnations across multiple series. --Polaron | Talk 18:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources that are adequate to WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. If someone really thinks a redirect is necessary, go ahead. Courcelles 00:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cataclysm (Transformers)[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Predacons. Mathewignash (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete so non-notable they didn't even bother with a toy this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mathewignash. WTF dude? Are you just using a boilerplate summary? --Divebomb (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to List of Decepticons. T. Canens (talk) 07:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carnivac[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Autobots. Mathewignash (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Carnivac is a Decepticon, not an Autobot. JIP | Talk 06:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If I'm reading the article correctly, this appears to be a comics-only character who never appeared in the series. In either case, does not appear to be notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What's wrong with being comics-only? The TV show doesn't define the entire fiction. That said, Carnivac did only have a very minor role in the comic. (And there are some characters who didn't appear in either the TV show or in the comic.) JIP | Talk 14:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Transformers was a very popular TV show, and the movies, flawed as they are, were both international blockbusters. But the comic, by comparison, was much less impactful, and thus characters appearing only in the comic have very little cultural significance and are unlikely to have substantial coverage in reliable sources the way, say, Optimus Prime might have. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That sounds like a reasonable argument, but I still don't think "if he wasn't in the show, he's not notable" can be used as a rule. Characters that only appeared in the comics tend to be less notable, but that's not set in stone. JIP | Talk 17:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I sure wasn't intending to establish a rule, but I guess since we're on the subject I might as well ask if there are any counterexamples: do you know of any comic-only Transformers characters who unquestionably pass WP:GNG? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Decepticons. How did this survive four years? --Divebomb (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. The two keep votes have absolutely zero grounding in policy, so I am ignoring both of them. Courcelles 00:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruticus[edit]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's big bad battlein Bruticus! He's freaking famous. Mathewignash (talk) 01:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: OK already! - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Big? Yes. Bad? Sure. Notable and verifiable in reliable sources? Heck no. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Merge to List of Beast Wars characters. No individual notability established.Cúchullain ^t/c 15:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackarachnia[edit]

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

Delete. Yeah, it's long, but that doesn't mean the character's notable. Not seeing any reason this warrants an article. J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The lead female character of TWO animated series. Mathewignash (talk) 01:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable per Math - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Above votes do not assert notability. No reliable, independent sources available in article or online to assert notability of article. Skinny87 (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Did you read the article at all? It has several references from magazines and books outside the fandom. Mathewignash (talk) 09:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed read the article, and what citations I can without the paper versions. Could you detail which one(s) you are talking about, and state why they're WP:RS? I currently can't see anything that would qualify as an RS. Skinny87 (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Magazine and the Star Online seem real enough. Mathewignash (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Beasties characters or somesuch. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Beast Wars characters, then punch the IP above me in the face. --Divebomb (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I see you already have a WP:ATTACK warning on your talk page, you should probably read it. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 07:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have read it. Also, if you're gonna quote policies, then at least link to the correct one. --Divebomb (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Commment- Its been long established that transformers fansites, forums and some books [2] are unreliable sources of information. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indie Queens[edit]

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

Non notable radio show of a University with no coverage CTJF83 chat 22:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete appears only on student radio. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ctjf83. JJ98 (Talk) 04:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Redirect to Global warming. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global heating[edit]

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

Article states that the term "Global heating" is often used inappropriately as a synonym for "Global warming" but then creates article where majority of content is copy and pasted from "Global warming" page. Appears to be an unnecessary fork. Rmosler | ● 21:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even useful as a redirect, since only the article seems to use the term. Edward321 (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to global warming, lots of book references.Soupy sautoy (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to global warming. — QuantumEleven 14:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is an important difference with "Global warming", they aren't the same thing.--93.146.156.174 (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my opinion it is an interesting item.--93.151.226.57 (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to global warming as was in the past. Article is an unceccessary fork, content described in article can be included in global warming article. Rmosler | ● 16:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there are the differences, why it should be included in global warming article.--188.152.134.171 (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's good to know the difference between the two--Chicco3 (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Climate change. everything here seems to be covered there. (NOT Redirect to Global Warming. this article's main focus is the fact that the Global Warming phrase is used primarily to mean Anthropogenic Global Warming.) VikÞor | Talk 21:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I removed a large chunk of the article that was simply copy/pasted from Global warming. -Atmoz (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to global warming as possible search term. It's more likely that someone searching for this will want global warming and not climate change. If not, that's what hatnotes are for. -Atmoz (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to global warming - useless content fork. As Atmoz noted the bulk of it was copied from GW. Vsmith (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5 (Die Antwoord EP)[edit]

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

No independent coverage, no evidence of notability. Even the band is of questionable notability. No reliable sourcing either. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Likely also candidate for speedy deletion under A9. Rmosler | ● 22:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no independent coverage? Coverage in Pitchfork asserts notability of this release and the band themselves --Kaini (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the second link you've provided is a just a google search of pitforkmedia pages which mention the EP. Independent coverage must exist in enough of a quantitiy to create a detailed page. This is explained at WP:NALBUMS. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

actually the second link i provided as a search of pitchfork pages which mention the band. regardless, here's coverage in the metro times, coverage by pitchfork as before, coverage by consequence of sound, here it is on itunes, and here it is in BPM magazine. i honestly don't see the notability problem here - the EP is on Interscope Records, an absolutely huge record label. --16:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If you're confident of notability why don't you use those sources to improve the article, then I'll re-look at the article when you're done and then if it passed WP:NALBUMS IMO, I will gladly retract this nomination. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources provided are reliable, but everything needs to overhauled regarding this band. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree as regards the overhaul, Theornamentalist. The main Die Antwoord article in particular could be much better. I have added some pitchfork references to the article, and should improve more over the next couple of days. --Kaini (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Die Antwoord and their releases are definitely notable, but I agree that their articles need a lot of work. Will see what I can do. -zorblek (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability per WP:NSONGS. Pitchfork states that only 5,000 copies of the album were released. There is a lack of significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Notability, at this point, primarily relies on Pitchfork and reviews offered in blogs. This is not a reflection of significant coverage. Cindamuse (talk) 15:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Okay, here's coverage of the EP in Rolling Stone magazine, which i think really illustrates my feeling that this AfD and the other Die Antwoord one that's open at the moment are a waste of time which could be put to much better use by editors, including myself. --01:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

and here's a (very good, actuallly) Consequence of Sound review: [3]. Personally I'm pretty sure the notability of this release has been established now. --02:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment. The Consequence of Sound reference is considered an unreliable, self-published source as an online Wordpress zine/blog. Brief mentions, along with track listings, such as that included in the Rolling Stone are not significant, but may be appropriately merged into the artist's main article or discography article. See WP:IRS regarding identifying reliable sources. As a side note, make sure to sign your comments and posts with four tildes ~~~~. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(the lack of sig seems to be a bug in wiki on the dev channel of chrome, my apologies) - i have to say i am baffled here. if i can briefly sum up why this release passes WP:N in my opinion: it's a release on Interscope Records, a large american record label. it's been covered in notable and verifiable sources such as Pitchfork Media, Rolling Stone, BoingBoing, and Consequence of Sound (Cindamuse, if you have a problem with the WP:RS or WP:N of Consequence of Sound, surely the place to take it is an AfD for the Consequence of Sound article - which seems pretty well-referenced to me at first glance). --Kaini (talk) 03:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response, upon reflection: Cindamuse, you're asserting here that a review of the EP in that most venerable of music magazines, Rolling Stone - fails WP:N or WP:RS? --Kaini (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A musical recording does not establish notability, based on the mere fact that it was released on a specific label. Notability of an album is not inherited from the label on which it was released. As blogs, neither BoingBoing nor Consequence of Sound are considered reliable. Pitchfork Media is not considered reliable as a zine. The Rolling Stone is notable, independent of the bands that they cover. Brief mentions or reviews, along with track listings are not considered significant coverage, regardless of the source. Regarding the notability of Consequence of Sound, the article contains no reliable links to establish notability. Regardless of this fact, you may want to review this link WP:OTHERSTUFF. The inclusion of one inappropriate article does not validate the inclusion of another. Cindamuse (talk) 05:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, regardless of anything else, i dispute that pitchfork is not reliable (and i suspect you would be in the minority amongst editors with that viewpoint). a significant portion of the album articles on wiki use pitchfork for references. --Kaini (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pitchform is reliable, but Cindamuse's comments are otherwise correct. Indepedent coverage needs to go beyond confirming a track listing and title. It needs to speak of the background/production, recording, context, reception of an album/release etc. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 18:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(de-indent) - added another, quite extensive review from Insound --Kaini (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - see Kaini--Narayan (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kaini. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aircrafts currently in production[edit]

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

Article has no text explaining its scope and appears to be non-notable. For civil and military aircraft, the list is very incomplete. Info probably better covered at List of civil aircraft and/or List of aircraft. -fnlayson (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. - BilCat (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list of civil aircrafts does not specify aircrafts still in production. -58snow —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58snow (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per comments above. Also, article seems fairly similar to Competition between Airbus and Boeing, since Bombardier generally makes smaller civil aircraft than Boeing and Airbus. -fnlayson (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable list. If it is deemed that a list of aircraft currently in production is warranted this would be far better covered by adding text to List of aircraft, although this status does change from week to week. If this article is kept it needs to be moved as there is no such word as "Aircrafts" in the English language. The plural of "aircraft" is "aircraft", just like the plural of "moose" is "moose". - Ahunt (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Noting that a PROD tag was removed with no edit summary (assumed to mean contested). No idea what this article is supposed to be covering. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 21:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Rmosler | ● 21:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If they stop producing a plane it would have to be taken off the list. Jaque Hammer (talk) 22:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Re-Add Well of course old aircraft not in production would be taken off! I think that because it should be aircraft not "Aircrafts." it should be renamed. 58snow (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)</[reply]

What is the 're-add' option? I am guessing that English is not your first language, apologies if I am wrong. If you intend to create an article that lists all aircraft types that are currently in production then the list entry would run to a hundred or more at a wild guess. It would be virtually impossible to keep it accurate and up to date, we have enough problems in the aircraft project with trying to update the aircraft type articles already (mainly lack of reliable or timely information). Production status information is almost always provided at aircraft type articles, if a little out of date or inaccurate due to fast moving changes. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I always look for a positive solution at AfD we don't have a Category:Aircraft currently in production or similar to my knowledge. I think that would be useful. Begs the question do we need a Category:Aircraft not in production, probably not but we do have many defunct company categories. Just a thought. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:32, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a workable option. Another problem with this article, as noted, is its scope: It says "aircraft", but covers only airliners over 100 seats or so - there are many below that. So, do we need subcategories such as civil, military, airlienrs, etc, or is one basic categoy OK? Fibally, it's always a good idea for someone to get input form like-minded editors before creating a new article, especially for a new editor. WP:AIR is one such place,a dn we regularly discuss creating new article, if they are needed, or how else to apprach the need for that topic to be covered. AFDs are no fun to go through, eseciually if it's your first article, but discussion beforehand can help avoid that pain. - BilCat (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think subcategories would be a good idea. But how would someone go about changing the name of the article? Also are links to the company's websites valid for a citation? - 58snow (talk • contribs) 21:51, 15 September 2010 (EST)

I like the "Category:Aircraft currently in production" suggestion also. I don't know of any way to rename the article to a category. -fnlayson (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) To create a category is the same as creating an article but it can be deleted in the same way, this article would not be renamed to a category, it would just be deleted. My suggestion should be taken to WT:AIR for discussion before implementing it as we have many, many categories already (but there is room for more), please do not create it without discussion. Links to company websites are valid and in most cases give the most up to date information (but not necessarily the most accurate or unbiased!!). See WP:RS, that might help. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 01:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would support creating a category in place of this list article. - Ahunt (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete provides no value as written, would be a very long and un-managable list with potentionaly hundreds of entries if populated. Support the idea of some sort of category but the details of that need to be discussed at the aircraft project not here. MilborneOne (talk) 07:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, support the category proposal as being discussed at WT:AIR. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 03:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think this article is a good idea. List of aircraft is very, very long and does not tell which aircraft are in production and which not. List of aircraft currently in production would be much shorter. Currently the content isn't good, but it can be improved and expanded. User:MilborneOne opposes keeping this because he thinks the article would become too long. Maybe it would, but that's a problem of the future and the article can then be splitted to something like List of passenger jets currently in production and List of turboprop passenger planes currently production. Also we can keep it shorter (if it's necessary, although I'm not convinved it would be) by not listing every variant of a plane type and instead just list the family, like Tu-204. Potential length is not really a reason to oppose the creation of this list. Offliner (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if for no other reason than the plural of Aircraft is Aircraft. An article like that would be almost impossible to keep up sensibly. Far better to take out a subscription to flight. Apart from that whetther an aircraft is in production or not is not relevent to an encyclopedia. Also the author is not very friendly as he hasn't even opened a user page!!!!!!!188.65.178.160 (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the policy that wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. This data is better suited split and placed into the articles about each company. It is more likely to be maintained there. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ginrai[edit]

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

The subject here has shown no importance beyond the corresponding show and comes off as a mere footnote in the franchise's history. The stuff mentioned that would qualify as development really proteins to the show itself and is nothing but an overly detailed biography and toylist. The later constitutes as fancruft. The article should be deleted and it's contents be move to the relevant articles Transformers: Chojin Masterforce main article and character list.

Also, I'd like to point out here that a deletion is not a death sentence. Also this is not a voting process, as Wikipedia is not a democracy. At anytime after, if more critical coverage can be brought to light regarding the character that show the character's real world impact. Then a new article can be created, but not before. So as it stands I feel that this should be a delete. Sarujo (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete or merge not notable outside this particular show to deserve a solo article. Dwanyewest (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - If the article is deleted, then it's page history will be gone, and any paste-merged content would be un-credited due to the lack of source page. NotARealWord (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Admins can resurrect deleted articles as the history isn't truly gone. Only to the common editors. Sarujo (talk) 01:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable Transformer. Lack of reliable, independent sources means article fails GNG. Skinny87 (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is the star of the Masterforce anime. Problem with finding too many sources is that it wasn't translated into english often, and when it was he was called "Optimus Prime" (you may notice the resemblence!), but they are out there. They article has some references, even if certain editors choose to ignore them. Mathewignash (talk) 13:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only two or three of the actual sources seem to be even approaching reliability, and I'm unsure even then - they seem like fan publications. Can you prove how they're WP:RS? Regardless, I don't think they confer independent notability; they're only used to cite the toys of the character, and fail to show how it is notable in any way. Skinny87 (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check out he DVD review of Transformers: Victory reference. It goes into detail about Ginrai's origin from Masterforce and how he changed for the Victory series. Mathewignash (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what makes that a Reliable Source for the article? It would seem to be a dvd review website that doesn't qualify to be a reliable source for this article. Skinny87 (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, it would appear to be a Self-Published Source with no editorial oversight, and thus is not an independent reliable source. Skinny87 (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If he's important to that series, then he should be written about in that series' article or character list. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of reliable secondary sources makes this Go-bot a mere footnote in the annals of the history of things that more than meet the eye. Donald Schroeder JWH018 (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The above vote was made by a banned sock puppet and should be ignored. Mathewignash (talk) 08:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - More fanboy-cruft to sift though. Game guides, toy guides, fan forums and the like are not reliable sources sufficient to pass the WP:GNG. Tarc (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any reliable sources discussing this subject. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Principal character of the Masterforce series. Also has several toy incarnations. --Polaron | Talk 18:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Main character in a notable series, and featured in various toylines. Dream Focus 14:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, where are the reliable sources? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Full articles are appropriate for key characters, & there are sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Reliable info to List of Transformers: Chojin Masterforce characters. If this article is to be deleted it should at the very least have a redirect to that page. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Homecoming (2010 film)[edit]

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

No sources provided except for facebook. Only results from a basic search are trailers and wiki. Not notable enough to warrant an article. BOVINEBOY2008 21:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not in wide release, not historically notable, no major award for filmmaking, not inducted into the national archives, not taught as a subject in a notable film program at an accredited university. Does not meet WP:NF. Rmosler | ● 22:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently fails notability per WP:TOOSOON. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was Delete. The sources do not constitute significant coverage in reliable sources.Cúchullain ^t/c 15:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North Rome Church of God[edit]

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

Non-notable organization lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:ORG. ttonyb (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local congregation fails WP:ORG. Edison (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep as per this and this references, in conjunction with some information which can be found in the other articles from the Rome News-Tribune. John Carter (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable sources. Church has approximately 1200 in membership and 600 in weekly attendance. In the religious community, "megachurches" are those with membership over 2,000. The size of the church, history, and profile of staff members do not indicate notability. Primary coverage is WP:LOCAL, which does not support notability. Cindamuse (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Cited sources do not constitute significant coverage. Very little and only local coverage with no depth. --Bejnar (talk) 04:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Oakwood Park Grammar School. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oakwood Park School[edit]

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

Can't find any references for an "Oakwood Park School". There is an Oakwood Park Grammar School in Maidstone but this article purports that there is an "Oakwood Park School" in London and I can't find verification of that. So if the community's consensus here is to delete, I'd suggest creating a redirect to Oakwood Park Grammar School. Mkativerata (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if it exists, there's no info in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not verified. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references to verify notability. Anyway, I'm the original speedy delete nominator. --intelati^(Call) 15:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Oakwood Park Grammar School per Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 06:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kaczism[edit]

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

No reliable sources, original research for satirical term used by political opponents non encyclopedic. Phrase known only in google by wiki mirrors. Mathiasrex (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable neoglogism. References only use the term "kaczyzm" (in Polish), but do not discuss the word per se (cf WP:NEO). No proof that the word "kaczism" or "duckism" has ever been used in English. — Kpalion^(talk) 09:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not the dictionary and it is a non-notable neologism. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Theatre Company[edit]

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

Non-notable local troupe at Calvin College. No third party sources show notability; there is only 1 reference, and it's not even clear what kind of document it is. Additionally, group does not appear to have won any major awards or performed any noteworthy programs. GrapedApe (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG. Every school has a theatre club, no evidence this is any more notable than average. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Calvin College. This is the fifth Calvin College group that has spawned its own article (and I don't think is independently notable enough). FYI, the others (which are almost all under current AfD) are: River City Improv, The January Series, Festival of Faith and Writing, and Festival of Faith and Music. Each might be notable enough by themselves (I don't think so, personally) but others might want to consider these together to save effort. Anyway, they're all mentioned on the Calvin College article and could probably be folded in to that article. Or deleted as not being notable events or groups. --Quartermaster (talk) 11:43, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GO-X[edit]

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

I'm unable to find reliable third-party sources to back up the content. The band's sole EP is self-released and not available on iTunes (contrary to the article's claim). The band fails to meet WP:BAND. Pichpich (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for bands. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Favonian (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Avolio[edit]

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

Lack of credible notability. Artist is unsigned to any label. External links consist of subject's Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, and iTunes accounts (website linked to in infobox). Sole reference for notability is to a Fangoria article listing a single song by the subject on the soundtrack for "2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams" which is an indie film made for $400,000. Total body of work cited consists of two videos ( one in 2008, one in 2010; no references to where they exist), and two songs (ditto). The second song, "All up in my candy" is the one listed in 2001 Maniacs: Field of Screams. Quartermaster (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7, no claim of notability in the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a mention of him in a Globe and Mail article (March 12, 2010; p. A18): "Careers of today's young artists, like the edgy and sui generis New York singer Sean Avolio, who is steaming up computer screens with his YouTube videos and has two songs available on iTunes, come from a very different place..." but that's all I could find. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My "google-fu" is not strong but I found nothing more then Paul Eric did. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ventrilo[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources - simply software directories or people selling the software. A couple of trivial mentions in RS mentioning the parent company's sponsorship of events but that's about it. Cameron Scott (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have a sufficient number of reviews from notable tech magazines [4]. Shows notability and can be used as sources. Use the TeamSpeak article for guidance, is the closest competitor, with Ventrilo being significantly more popular on the web. [5] Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Your first link goes to google where it shows a number of blog and forum posts and not 'notable tech magazines' as you suggest and the second is to web analytics, not something we use in the place of Reliable sources. If you have links to actual reviews in 'notable tech magazines, please provide them or add them to the article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Pirillo covers Ventrilo regularly, GameStar has given it an in-depth review [6], and PC Gamer pronounced it one of its top ten gaming apps last month [7]. I think you need to learn to research better. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If we keep TeamSpeak we might as well have Ventrilo. The vent article needs to be cleaned up and have more sourcing, but that's what the tags are for. Rmosler | ● 22:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found above. Ventrilo is a popular game software, and the list of resources that Papa Lima Whiskey has found are reasonable and appropriate. Editing to remove the problematic parts and increasing sourcing in the article seems to be a far better path than deletion. Jclemens (talk) 01:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has a recognised place in gamer culture.Morgan Leigh | Talk 12:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ventrilo is currently the most widely used VoIP party line software with an established user base among gamers who use it for coordination during online gaming sessions. As such, it's a product with enough cultural significance to warrant an article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oneryu[edit]

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

This is essentially a made up term used by a single poet to describe his own unique style of poetry. No indication that anyone else has picked up this term. PROD declined by author with no explanation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication this is used by anyone other than the creator. No significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~ GB fan ~~ 18:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. Article writer's Explanation and Reasons to publish the page :

There are more than 100 such poetry listed by various authors.This Oneryu has been well accepted by acclaimed poetic community as a form of Poetry. References are listed below:

Author : Mumukshu ( http://www.poetfreak.com/poet/Mumukshu)

Author: Premji Premji (http://www.poetfreak.com/poet/premjipremji)

Author : Sridevi (http://www.poetfreak.com/poet/sridevi)

Author : Nikunj ( http://www.poetfreak.com/poet/Nikunj)
- http://www.poetfreak.com/text/57111/God-(Oneryu).html

Author : FrankJamesRyanJrFjR670 ( http://www.poetfreak.com/poet/FrankJamesRyanJrFjR670)
- http://www.poetfreak.com/text/57033/Romantic-Heart-in-Motion-%7BONERYU%7D.html

Author : Don ( http://www.poetfreak.com/poet/Don)
- http://www.poetfreak.com/text/56586/Conjoined-Twins-(oneryu).html

Author: Gita Ashok ( http://www.poetfreak.com/poet/GitaAshok)

Author: Sandra Martyres ( http://www.poetfreak.com/poet/SandraMartyres)
- http://www.poetfreak.com/text/56995/Deceptive-and-Opportunistic-(ONERYU).html
- http://www.poetfreak.com/text/57141/Long-and-Loud-(-ONERYU).html

Author : Ojja fink ( http://www.poetfreak.com/poet/wojjafink)
- http://www.poetfreak.com/text/57116/Couldn%27t-write-a-thing-without-(Oneryu).html

Author : sonetta (http://www.poetfreak.com/poet/sonetta)
- http://www.poetfreak.com/text/57088/technologically-challenged-oneryu.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.28.214 (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REQUEST :KEEP. THE ARTICLE MAY NOT BE DELETED AND ALLOWED TO BE CONTINUED

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganletters (talk • contribs)

The above "references" do not establish notability. They only confirm that poets write in this format, not that reliable sources have discussed this poetry format. Are there any reliable sources that discuss this format? If there are then present them here or add them to the article and people will reevaluate their recommendations. ~~ GB fan ~~ 05:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it is a not-notable neologism. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If articles like these are allowed to exist on Wikipedia, every internet poet, artist, musician, etc., will be "inventing" new art forms in order to be featured on this site. This form of poetry has already been recognized as a "one-line haiku" decades ago and does not need a name (which is an invented word that has no valid origin) in order to attach it to the poet that supposedly discovered it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.157.49.236 (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete (G7), deleted upon request of article creator. –MuZemike 00:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salad Fingers: The Game[edit]

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

There are no sources backing up the claim that this is a real game in production. Google search indicates that it's a hoax. Failed speedy and prod was contested. SQGibbon (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The box art definitely looks like it is a joke. Taking that it is a real game, the article says that it won't be released until 2012 and there is no significant coverage to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 18:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete obvious hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete even though the admin just declined the speedy. Completely Unverifiable hoax; even the author on youtube admits it is fake. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources. Search past WPVG Talk.) • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Calvin College. No argument for keeping was given, nor do I have one. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Festival of Faith and Music[edit]

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

Non-notable local music series at Calvin College. No third party sources to establish notability. Having notable musicians play at a festival does not make the music festival notable. The article is 100% unreferenced.GrapedApe (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Calvin College entry. This is one of three similar articles that should probably be dealt with together - they're all minor events put on by Calvin College. See also Festival of Faith and Writing and The January Series. All three of these are listed under Notable events and all three have been spawned as stand-alone articles. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add River City Improv to the list of minor groups/events spawned from Calvin College. River City Improv is also currently undergoing an AfD discussion. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. The section "Notable events" on Calvin College's main article is a short list of events with no info. Merge these little articles into that section to provide substance for a section and that is sufficient coverage for these events. Bhockey10 (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete routine school event that doesn't need a seperate article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above --Kudpung (talk) 00:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The January Series[edit]

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

Non-notable local lecture series at Calvin College. No third part sources to establish notability. Having notable speakers does not make the lecture series notable. The article is 100% unreferenced, which makes it totally Original Research. GrapedApe (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Calvin College entry. This is one of three similar articles that should probably be dealt with together - they're all minor events put on by Calvin College. See also Festival of Faith and Music and Festival of Faith and Writing. All three of these are listed under Notable events and all three have been spawned as stand-alone articles. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add Calvin Theatre Company as a fifth minor, non-notable Calvin College group up for AfD. --Quartermaster (talk) 11:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd vote against deletion. It did win the best college lectureship series several times, and is probably unique in that it provides a lecture by a significant speaker each day for three weeks. Most of the information probably comes from the series web site, so it's not really original research. Bytwerk (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, those claims of eminence are not being bolstered with any evidence whatsoever. If the NYT covers this, and some reputable agency is actually running a "Best College Lectureship Series" contest, I'd like to see that properly cited. Otherwise, notability is not being established. --Quartermaster (talk) 11:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all colleges host lectures, and I'm not sure I see anything that makes sense to merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without merge this is not worth covering even in the main article. Nergaal (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black and Greene Records[edit]

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

No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - My own metric for indie labels — which others are free to take or leave — is this: does the label have WP blue-linked artists on its roster? This label has four that I count. Each of these pages needs in-links and this is a logical source for them. This particular page features a coherent and useful discography; sort of borderlinish in the total number of releases, admittedly, but still enough going for it that I can't see a good reason for deletion. Carrite (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Sources are available, but most of them do more to establish the notability of specific bands, and only mention the label in passing. I'm not completely convinced the label has attracted enough attention in its own right, so it might boil down to a question of whether being the label for several notable bands confers notability or not. --Korruski (talk) 14:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or perhaps Merge with Apollo Sunshine, for whom it appears to be essentially a vanity label. 10 releases in 7 years doesn't indicate notability to me, especially since all the artists attached (aside from Apollo Sunshine) are really minor. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – There are citations now to a number of reliable sources (I added one more) in which there is brief, but non-trivial, coverage of the record label. In a way, these short record label articles can be considered a variant of lists in mainspace—"List of bands signed to Black and Greene Records" for example—which seems reasonable when there are at least several notable artists in the list. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

River City Improv[edit]

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

Minor comedy improv troupe that is used to supporting the fundraising goals of Calvin College. No third party references to establish notability. No references at all, in fact, so the article is 100% original research. No notable members or former members. GrapedApe (talk) 16:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current article is totally unsourced and reads like an advertisement. I was thinking of rescuing this article after I gave it a quick read, but I can't find a single mention in a WP:RS, so I've got to go along with the nom and think it's just not notable. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 17:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Calvin College entry. Agree with "unsourced and reads like an advertisement." I'd like to point out that this is listed under the Calvin College entry under Alumni groups. This appears to be the fourth minor group or event spawned from the Calvin College entry. The others are The January Series (currently being discussed for deletion), Festival of Faith and Music (currently being discussed for deletion), and Festival of Faith and Writing (maybe should be up for AfD). --Quartermaster (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add Calvin Theatre Company as a fifth minor, non-notable Calvin College group up for AfD. --Quartermaster (talk) 11:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think there's any point in merging anything relevant from any of those articles back into the Calvin College entry, and then leaving all 5 up as redirects back to the correct section of the college article? Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 01:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG, nothing verifiable worth merging. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delene kvasnicka[edit]

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

Delete. Non-notable author. Only sources available are blogs and self-promo. No significant coverage from reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Wknight94 ^talk 16:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any reliable and independent sources. Subject fails WP:AUTHOR. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 18:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 18:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability and I can't find any independent sources. --Deskford (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite existence, there's no evidence of notability. Rirunmot 02:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't Delete. Billyjensonrocks —Preceding unsigned

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.

comment added by Billyjensonrocks (talk • contribs) 22:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC) When you are looking at the survivalist movement you have to take a look at all the facts.[reply]

Here are some of the links on the page.

Here are the search links I added this authors page that show the author has published over 3000 books on aamazon and were removed by another user. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=www.survivalebooks.com&x=14&y=14

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=d+kvasnicka

If you do not think that is notabil enough lets take a look at the other refs that are on the page

http://www.survivalblog.com/2009/06/letter_re_advice_for_an_m4_and.html Is a ref by James Wesley Rawles on www.survivalblog.com and if you do not know who he is you can look at his wikipedia page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wesley_Rawles and refs from his site all over wikipedia. His site has been accepted for refs for years here on wikipedia see this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivalism

http://www.urbansurvival.com/blog/?p=1267 is George Ure of www.urbansurvival.com who talked about his author and the books with George Noory on Coast To Coast AM and here is the wikipedia pages for that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Noory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coast_to_Coast_AM

Here is a ref from the same guy above on his website also https://www.urbansurvival.com/nl20090725.htm

James Wesley Rawles and George Ure are some of the most well know leaders in survivalist movement and they are very well known, just ask anyone that is into survival. If you ask people in that same movement if they have heard of www.survivalebooks.com about half of them will say they have. There are no self promotes on James Wesley Rawles and George Ure sites. All that has happened is that leaders in the field liked what the author was doing and they started noting it.

It would have been better if I linked to the youtube video instead of this guys board http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQLYYxfB7lw instead of the link to the board below.

http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=84700 as Kevins site I did not find a ton of info on here besides ref on another page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=www.survivalistboards.com but he is also very well know with message board with 37,910 members, and massive views on youtube. But if you also take a look at the http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=survivalistboards.com&aq=f gives you a idea of how well know he is when it comes to survivalism.

Delene also has a message board from what I have seen does not look like it is maintained and it massive members http://www.survivalismforum.com/ that only has 18,000 members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyjensonrocks (talk • contribs) 22:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete lack of independent sources strongly indicates non-notability. Edward321 (talk) 13:44, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. according to the consensus. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You Will[edit]

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

No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep subject is notable for being an iconic advertising campaign, a significant early work of David Fincher, and is culturally interesting for the accuracy of its predictions. Luvcraft (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSNOTABLE doesn't hold water. Prove it's notable... I dunno, maybe by FINDING SOURCES? Seems no one wants to do that anymore. I already tried and came up with bupkis. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hammer, I added a reference, but you removed the reference with the comment "ugly". That is not a constructive edit, and undermines your AFD nomination. Luvcraft (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: I don't know David Fincher, but I'll buy the argument. Still, it feels like the contents of the article belong inside another article and not in a standalone article. -- BenTels (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is definitely a notable ad campaign. I found a reference in a major news source with less than a minute of Googling. I've added that citation and cleaned up the references a bit. Chris Quackenbush (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article, it may need improvment but is notable. Tduk (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Ranger (Cannabis)[edit]

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

not notable
not encyclopedic
not referenced with acceptable refs Mjpresson (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (as nom)Google has zero results for this, not notable, not encyclopedic, not referenced with acceptable refs
Delete - Sole cited source invites reader review submissions. Unencyclopedic treatment of an unspecified "strain" of ganja. Merge to cannabis indica if so desired. Carrite (talk) 16:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per the WP article marijuana strains: Strains are often named by the breeder or grower to differentiate one from another. Ergo, strain names are basically made-up non-notable neologisms. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As Carrite points out, this is more of a brand name like Blueberry Yum Yum. However, I have no objection to it being added to the Cannabis indica article. These things need to be documented.--Aspro (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the reasons mentioned above. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10th Anniversary[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL, no sources found. Prod removed without comment by a user who should know better. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Assuming the article is true, the book probably will be notable when it is released, or close to release, but we don't have any solid information to sustain an article yet. Unreferenced and unverifiable. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL? Sorry, 10#, crystal is the 15th anniversary, the 10th is tin and aluminum. Mandsford 00:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for books. The "Women's Murder Club series" should be created first, it it meets notability criteria. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJPhonica[edit]

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

I see no indication that this passes WP:WEB or WP:BIO. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, A7. Or just plain delete if you think all the chatter about "IDJ Charts" passes the bar as a claim to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Kresovich[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWs of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO ttonyb (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Artist has satisfied requirement of notable media stories (CNN, Kotaku, GamePro), has won notable music contest and produced works of consequence for major-award-nominated artists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.114.82 (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article itself confirms non-notability: he made "more than $1000" for his one and only album, which isn't even toilet-paper money by music industry standards. If we assume they sold for $15 each, that means about 65 copies sold! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It said he donated the profits which was over $1000, it says nothing about the overhead prices on the album. Before dismissing someone's accomplishment you should read the information more clearly and make sure you understand it. You also did not address the other points of notability either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.114.82 (talk)

Comment – None of the "news" stories are of a "non-trivial" nature. A one line mention in an article about someone else is not a reliable source. ttonyb (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also it should be noted that the information in question simply services the more notable information above. Is it as notable? I agree that it is probably not. However, for an artist I think it is important to have their entire discography available to all those who would like to learn more about him. For encyclopedic purposes, you wouldn't want to simply discard a section of someone's discography because it was before they started doing things that we as editors consider as notable. The information on the profits being donated is simply imformation that is relevant to mentioning his entire discography. The fact that he was scouted by Def Jam and donated all the profit to charity in my mind is relevant, if not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.114.82 (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not determined by individual editors, it is an assessment of the article's ability to meet the Wikipedia defined criteria for notability. Wikipedia is not the place to disseminate information about persons that do not meet Wikipedia based notability - I suggest that would be better served by a personal website. ttonyb (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero substantial coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spatulli (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Derild 49 21 ☼ 00:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tharwa Primary School[edit]

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia's "Notability" guidelines for schools. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education Shirt58 (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete per standard procedure for non-notable schools lower than the secondary level. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally an elementary school would not be considered notable, but this one's great age and the controversy surrounding its closure make it notable. I added more sources to the article. --MelanieN (talk) 04:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per MelanieN. I'll look for some further references. I've made it clear that this school was the oldest operating school site in the ACT. This is an important claim to notability (at least in the ACT). Gillyweed (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As Carrite and other !voters pointed out, the current policy is to generally delete or redirect primary schools. (Full disclosure: I think the policy is wrong. My point of view is that Primary Schools are just as important as Secondary Schools and Universities. North Strathfield Public School, for example, has produced more High Court Justices than all but a handful of Australian Universities.) Nb: This is not a withdrawal of the AfD nomination - consensus about notability must still be proven - but a very big thank you for the improvement of the article. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the current policy (or rather practice) is not "to generally delete or redirect primary schools" - it's to delete or redirect them unless they can demonstrate notability. The "common outcomes" page you linked says "Most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD". The burden is on the school to demonstrate notability, but if it does, it is kept. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The school really only gets coverage because it was so insignificant it had to be closed. Having said that the article is fine and the sourcing is good enough. So while the case notability is very very marginal, the state of the article leads me to think keep. We're heading down the wrong track if we're keeping articles on things fictional super metals without any sourcing whatsoever but punting decently sourced articles like this.--Mkativerata (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that there are probably many more sources out there than are searchable on the interweb. The Canberra Times doesn't archive anything online. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Curtin Primary School[edit]

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia's "Notability" guidelines for schools. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education Shirt58 (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete per standard procedure for non-notable schools lower than the secondary level. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable primary school. --MelanieN (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gold Creek School[edit]

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia's "Notability" guidelines. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education Shirt58 (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete per standard procedure for non-notable schools lower than the secondary level. Carrite (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable primary school. --MelanieN (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was procedural close. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyneham Primary School is ongoing. I will move Carrite (talk · contribs)'s comment to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyneham Primary School. Cunard (talk) 03:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lyneham Primary School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia's "Notability" guidelines. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education Shirt58 (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete per standard procedure for non-notable schools lower than the secondary level. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O'Connor Co-operative School[edit]

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

This article may not meet Wikipedia's "Notability" guidelines. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education Shirt58 (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or Delete per standard procedure for non-notable schools lower than the secondary level. Carrite (talk) 16:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable primary school. --MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~The result was redirect to Archimedean spiral. Content was merged so history must be preserved for attribution purposes. T. Canens (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

The result was delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clackson scroll formula[edit]

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

Per the talk page, one source is a primary source and the other is non-reputable, therefore notability is not asserted. Moreover, a detailed interest search doesn't show any such equation or principal, therefore I think this is a made-up concept. Wizard191 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find nothing to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 18:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, unless better sources are provided within the next few days.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Dreamspy (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Apparently a neologism, but the formula might be mentioned as an estimate for the length of an Archimedean spiral.--RDBury (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Archimedean spiral - I have already merged the text into that article. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that's a good idea, because, as far as I can tell, the equation is made up. So unless you can find a real confirmable reference, I think you are propagating a fallacy. Wizard191 (talk) 12:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If as far as you can tell, it's just "made up" and a "fallacy", then I suggest you're not very good at math. All you need to do is check the derivation that's given in the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - The problem here is not the mathematical correctness but the notability of the term "clarkson sacroll formula". A redirect makes only sense if the term is actually mentioned in the target article and if there's sufficient evidence that the term is established/used/somewhat known. The current sources are not sufficuent evidence.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if reputable secondary sources can be found. I'm surprised that nothing on the length of the Archimedean spiral can be found in that article (until this estimate was added). I'd have guessed an exact formula would appear (whether "closed-form" or not I won't guess right now). That a simple estimate originated out of a need arising in a field other than pure geometry is interesting. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment via Google Books I find this one containing the phrase "Clackson scroll formula":

Title: Metalworking: Metal, Forge, Engraving, Cladding, Sintering, Screw, Metalworking, Parts Cleaning, Powder Metallurgy, Rivet, Spray Forming

Author: Books, LLC

Publisher: General Books, 2010

ISBN 1156531438, 9781156531433

Length 504 pages

And also this:

Title: Spirals: Logarithmic Spiral, Ulam Spiral, Archimedean Spiral, Spiral, Euler Spiral, Spiral, Track Transition Curve, Rhumb Line

Author Books, LLC

Editor Books, LLC

Publisher: General Books, 2010

ISBN 1155647165, 9781155647166

Length 112 pages

Michael Hardy (talk) 18:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardy, note that both books are written by "Books, LLC", which commonly copies the text from Wikipedia in their books. See: [8]. Also, ~~your~~ the unreferenced derivation of the equation equates to original research, which doesn't hold up for notability purposes. Wizard191 (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My derivation? When did I write any derivation? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and when a derivation is so simple that any high-school student can check it in a minute, does that come under the OR rule? I think there's been some discussion of this before. If I multiply 777 by 286 and report that I got 222,222, and it happens by some freak chance that no one has ever multiplied that exact pair of numbers before, am I violating the OR rule? If so, lots of articles are in trouble. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MathWorld has the exact formula and it's easy to find in other sources. I'm a bit leery of using the GBooks sources as references since they're 'no preview'. For all I know they're just reprinting the material from Wikipedia.--RDBury (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a few minutes after commenting above I added to the integral of secant cubed article that one of the applications of that integral is to the arc length of the Archimedean spiral. It's pretty easy to derive. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although this formula is not the exact volume, it's closer to the exact value than what seems to be suggested by the argument give by Ryan Reich on the article's talk page. If one had concentric circles, rather than a spiral, and s is the distance between any two adjacent ones, then the total area would be

2\pi s+4\pi s+6\pi s+\cdots +2n\pi s=2\pi s{n(n+1) \over 2}=\pi s(n^{2}+n).\,

But it's not concentric circles. Each time the spiral winds around once the radius increases by s. If we therefore approximate the length by the amount half-way between the lengths of two circles, with radii differing by s, then for the area we get

\pi s+3\pi s+5\pi s+7\pi s+\cdots +(2n-1)\pi s=\pi sn^{2},\,

which is just what Clackson's formula gives. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of mIchael Hardy;s discussion, which I expect he will add to the article. DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But how do we know that this equation is properly known as the "clackson scroll formula"? Maybe its properly called something else? My point is that we have nothing more than original research right now, that we can confirm is mathematically correct. How do we even know that it's notable or even empirically used anywhere? Wizard191 (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 14:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't and the discussion regarding mathematical correctness/prorperties is imho missing the point. There was never an issue regarding the math but only regarding the notability of the name "clarkson formula", i. e. whether it can be considered an at least somewhat established term or not. So far we are still lacking sufficient references for that. The 2 references in the article are not good enough (as pointed out in the original AfD) and the 2 books found via google books might be good enough, if somebody gets a chance to take a closer look to see what's actually written in them, but simply having them listed as a result in a google book search is not good enough either.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there's something reasonably called a "scroll formula" and it's clearly due to someone named Clackson, is that enough reason why an article about it should be called "Clackson's scroll formula" or "Clackson scroll formula" (presumably preceded by the definite article when used in a sentence), or is it necessary that particular name, "the Clackson scroll formula" be in widespread standard use within the community of those who know the formula? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imho the former case alone might not be good enough and currently we don't really have reliable evidence for that. I don't think a widespread use is necessarily required, but i'd say some use within a community is required and somebody not particularly notable calling it (once) by that name in some not particularly notable article or publication is definitely not enough. But that's all we have with the references in the article so far. Moreover none of the involved here has actually seen any of the discussed sources first hand, so strictly speaking we couldn't even exclude a smart fake for sure.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

S.G. Clackson, "The Trinity Church Screen", SCAT Report 1981
^ "MSC Craft-Based Training – Forging and Hand Skills

These two things are cited. What are they? What is SCAT and what is MSC? Can they be found in some library? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find no evidence of the Clackson Scroll formula being used for estimating requirements for stock in blacksmithing. Books LLC simply copies wikipedia (see this discussion) and as such is not a reliable source. The correctness of any formula is rather irrelevant. -- Whpq (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of live-action films based on cartoons and comics[edit]

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

This article duplicates information already split into more useful and better maintained lists: List of films based on English-language comics, List of films based on comic strips, List of films based on cartoons, and List of children's books made into feature films. Cartoons and comics are different enough formats that this page seems arbitrary, redundant, and unnecessary. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suggest creating a category based on this rather than a list because there isn't much information on the lead section. Minima c (talk) 07:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are already categories for Films based on comics and Films based on comic strips. Why do we need a third category that merges these two for just live-action movies? Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a directory of links. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable topic, and one of interest to many readers. The standards of inclusion are also clear. Of course a category would work too, but the list is a little easier to scan. I'm sure that reliable sources have said something about this so more text could be added. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me that this is a single "topic" as you have suggested. Comic books, cartoons, and comics strips are all separate formats. The page, as it currently exists, does not even indicate which of these three sources each film is based on...and to do so would simply be duplicating content that appears elsewhere. The exclusion of animated films from this list seems arbitrary as well. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This one would work only as a dab page. No "keep", because I agree with the nominator that this short list has been superseded by List of films based on English-language comics, List of films based on comic strips, List of films based on cartoons, all of which are better (though not "much better", all three are still alphabetically arranged lists links of blue links that could tell more than they do about the items on the lists). I hesitate on saying "delete", since (a) this could become a disambiguation page leading to the other three articles (I don't see the fourth article, children's books, being mentioned in the same breath as cartoons and comics) and (b) although nearly all of the films on those lists appear to be "live-action" (i.e., live actors rather than animation), none of them mention live action. Mandsford 12:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Films based on children's books, such as Stuart Little and the Cat in the Hat, appear on this list even though they would not seemingly meet the criteria for inclusion (see a thread on the article's talk page for further discussion of this). Films based on comic strips also do not fit the topic if the term "comics" is meant to include only comic books and graphic novels (see List of films based on comics for this usage of the term). The ambiguity as to what this page is meant to report seems to me to be another argument for deletion. I do not agree with Kitfoxxe that the standards of inclusion are clear - the current contents of this list would suggest otherwise. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, this list is redundant. If necessary, a disambiguation page can be made to the various sub-lists pages. It is a bit confusing: we have List of films based on manga, List of films based on comics, List of films based on cartoons, List of films based on comic strips, List of films based on English-language comics, and List of films based on French-language comics. Danski14^(talk) 18:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused, and did not recognize the distinction is between Live action films and films in general. The lists I mentioned cover both. Perhaps this does warrant keeping. Danski14^(talk) 18:12, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because the list could be improved. For instance, I could see a sortable table with release date or country of production. That's something a category can't provide. Pichpich (talk) 02:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here isn't whether lists provide more information than categories. The issue is whether we should keep an arbitrary list that duplicates more complete and better organized content available elsewhere on WP. Note all of the lists mentioned above that already include this content. The information you suggest adding could just as easily be added to those pages as well. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 03:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. The list at present needs augmentation by indicating at least what the cartoon or comic source is, and the year,, and possibly even the director--these serve as features helping navigation and browsing. If t is certainly not indiscriminate, as they are all notable films by Wikipedia standards--a list of every film ever made that was so based, such a list would be indiscriminate . Similarly for objections about a "list of links" a list of links to other Wikipedia articles is exactly what lists are usually intended to be. The term refers to a list of external links, a link directory. I think such a directory would be highly useful--I still remember the old alta vista-- but it is not part of the mission of Wikipedia, though it would make a good project. DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether these films pass notability guidelines. I agree that they do. The question is whether a list dedicated to this topic needs to exist if other pages with the same information already do. Here's an analogy: if there is a list of films based on poems and a list of films based on books. Is there any point to having a page that is a "list of live-action films based on poems and books"? I would say "no" because this pairing is arbitrary and the information already appears elsewhere. Same issue here. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep List of films based on English-language comics is great, but it doesn't properly list which films are cartoons, and which ones are live action. If that list could be clicked upon and instantly sorted, than this one wouldn't be necessary. As it is, sometimes you want to see just the live action films listed. The GiJoe live action film could be based on the toyline which the cartoon series and the comic book were both licensed from, and used to advertise it(they originally required both to include certain things to help promote particulate toys). The same can be said about the Transformers, He-Man, and others. Dungeons and Dragons has been made into a live action film, it starting as a game. I think a list would be more useful if it was List of live-action films based on cartoons, comics, games, and toys. Dream Focus 13:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have created and continue to maintain the page List of films based on toys, which distinguishes between live action and animated films. I have also updated the page List of films based on cartoons to make this distinction clear as well. It would seem sensible to me to make this distinction clearer in similar pages as well. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Dennis the Menace in there, it a comic strip. Garfield started as one first also. Does saying comics include comic strips and comic books, or should both be listed in the title? Dream Focus 13:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need a lengthy list page called List of live-action films based on cartoons, comics, comic strips, and toys? Also, what makes live action films based on these properties warrant their own list? Would there also need to be List of animated films based on cartoons, comics, comic strips, and toys? Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 13:47, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what about books and musicals? List of live-action films based on cartoons, comics, comic strips, toys, books and musicials would the only logical choice. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have specific lists so this odd mash-up is not required and seem duplicates what exists there. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Shapiro (author)[edit]

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

This article has Copied-and-pasted text from: http://www.uknscc.org/2005_uknscc/speakers/shapiro_pringle.html . It has had a little bit omited, but the article is not in the own persons words. Please help improve or delete this article RedBlue82 ^talk 21:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for authors. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very sloppy article construction, as no WP:RS are cited. EnabledDanger (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't pass WP:AUTHOR. Spatulli (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I started expanding the article properly to show all his publications, which are in hundreds of libraries, and some of the reviews they have received. --his book on Hendrix, for example, was reviewd by both Rolling Stone and The Economist--among others. This is a typical carelessly written article that inadequately shows the notability, and where the nom hasn't checked. Good practice, when it's indicated that someone has written a book, is to try WorldCat, which typically either shows all his books, & some of the reviews, or proves he's self-published or unpublished, and thus settles the issue one way or another. DGG ( talk ) 02:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with DGG. Poorly written article, as of now, but the guy's books are widely avaible and covered, and he seems to meet WP:AUTHOR. Vrivers (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks to DGG the article now shows his notability. His major book went into a second edition and was translated into Chinese; multiple reviews in Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Terrible stub article but adequate career achievement to merit inclusion, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Filthy Rich (1982 TV series). (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Guy Beck[edit]

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

Delete - fictional characters from failed sitcom. No reliable sources indicate that these characters are independently notable. Fail WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Filthy Rich, as no list of characters exists, LENGTH doesn't dictate one, and there doesn't appear any good reason to create one. Jclemens (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge all as suggested above--and i do not really see why anyone would oppose it, or why deletion was suggested instead. DGG ( talk ) 05:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering that I've been threatened for engaging in one editorial process I can hardly be blamed for being wary about engaging in other editorial processes. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 06:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all. No justification for a separate article, particularly without RS. –Moondyne 06:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Adventures of Eco Boy[edit]

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

Notability not established in reputable third party sources. No copies of this work are for sale on Amazon. No copies of this work are available via OCLC WorldCat. No book reviews are cited. The entire output of this book's publishing house (Feeding Brains - listed in External Links) is this book and its sequel. Quartermaster (talk) 13:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be self published. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion that this passes WP:NBOOK. Jclemens (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Sadads (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Adventures of Eco Boy, Volume 2[edit]

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

Notability not established in reputable third party sources. No copies of this work are for sale on Amazon. No copies of this work are available via OCLC WorldCat. No book reviews are cited. The entire output of this book's publishing house (Feeding Brains - listed in External Links) is this book and its prequel. Quartermaster (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be self published. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion that this passes WP:NBOOK. Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per nom, Sadads (talk) 19:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LMK Resources[edit]

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

Appears to be little assertion of notability, I can't find any WP:RS's after a reasonable search. Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Yet another global provider of Geo-Technology and Information Technology services to businesses and governments. No showing of historical, technical, or cultural significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no claim to notability. . . Mean as custard (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stay the Night (James Blunt song)[edit]

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

No reliable sources available on a google search; seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for songs. There is no information for a standalone article, the single was not even released and it is an unlikely search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to James Blunt. Cindamuse (talk) 10:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure if there's a point in having this as a redirect: better just to delete the article but leave an entry in the Stay the Night disambig page pointing to James Blunt. It seems unlikely that anyone is going to search for "Stay the Night (James Blunt song), though they might search for "Stay the Night", looking for the song by James Blunt. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Improved page with reputable sources regarding release, cover image and tracklisting. I hope with this information the page can be taken off the articles for deletion list. [TALK] 11:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources you added give little actual information, and the first appears to be a press release, and a very short one at that. The second one appears to be a German blog. Neither of these sources demonstrate notability or could be considered reliable. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 11:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First single from new album from the "You're Beautiful" guy. There's significant coverage, only hangup would be that it hasn't charted yet. But again, coverage is significant and reliable. I can add some soon - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some links to some of this coverage in the meantime? I have been thus far unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, here's what google news turned up (New York Post, Music news and various other worlwide coverage/multilingual) some swiss charts] and I think it shows Germany as having it at Number 31. (I say this sarcastically, but with a grain of sincerity) I've looked into my CrystalBall and I foresee that more coverage will likely be found later, as it's only been a week since this single has been released, and apparently his music has worldwide exposure. - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - added some references, chart info, and the charts I'm sure could be expanded but I imagine them to change rapidly at this point in the songs release. Anyway, hope this helps - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Las Vegas Arena[edit]

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

Too crystal ball-ish. There was apparently the beginnings of a plan that fell through (it was supposed to have opened around now), and there's no real plan now. A new article can be created if and when any real plans develop. In short, this is barely notable vaporware.oknazevad (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is still very much alive and there is significant coverage of this through last month in various media. There is also an active petition for a ballot initiative in the works. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtful The article seems to talk as if the only proposals were this arena and a now-abandoned downtown arena - but my reading of the sources suggest that there are actually three "New Arena" proposals still in the works. I am not from the area and am not sure what is really going on, but I question the neutrality of this article, if it is talking about just one of the proposed "new arenas" and ignoring others. --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Article exhibits adequate sourcing to sneak over the notability bar, in my opinion. If anyone felt strongly about NOT NEWS or CRYSTAL BALL here, that could also be easily argued. Carrite (talk) 16:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep this shouldn't have been created in the first place since nothing is solid, but since it is created and there are enough references to demonstrate notability, it should be keep.—Chris!_c/t 18:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of ethnic conflicts involving the Dutch Colonialists[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This unattended unsourced list could easily be incorporated into the Dutch Empire article or subsidiary articles rather than a stand alone orphan with no attention - the see also is telling - no-one ever did it for the British Empire Satu Suro 10:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Provides nothing that is not already covered in a whole lot more detail in other articles. --11:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bizarre, unreferenced, and useless, list. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ACE Electoral Knowledge Network[edit]

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

Prod contested on the grounds that tens of thousands of references canbe found on sites deemed reliable. However, none of the ones cited are of the kind that establishes notability. In GNews, only trivial mentions turned up, and very few of them. Same in GScholar. In GBooks as well, except for the first three hits, which were ads. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A six-digit Alexa ranking usually (but not always) indicates a lack of notability. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While a six-digit Alexa ranking is not impressive for popular topics, no online resource on elections ranks better than aceproject.org. No clue (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - … which is irrelevant when it comes to whether multiple independent reliable sources exist documenting the subject in depth. Uncle G (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that googling ACE can be tricky as it has aparently changed names over time and is often referred to under old or short names ('ACE Project', 'Administration and Cost of Elections', 'Electoral Knowledge Network', 'ACE'). There is also an unrelated commericial website (aceproject.com) for which ads sometimes show up when searching for "ACE".
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) returns over 200 hits in GBooks, over 500 in GScholar and no ads. Still for keep No clue (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Counting Google hits is not research. Please cite three of those books that actually document this subject, rather than simply give a URL of a WWW page that has that domain name. Blanchardb reports what xe found when xe actually read the things that Google turned up. You're just counting hits, which are entirely meaningless figures, and not even looking at what the results are. That's not research. Cite sources for your content. Prove to everyone that you didn't just make up this article out of whole cloth. Uncle G (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, based to a considerable extent on the sponsorship--but needs some rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
While DGG's comment carries weight, it'll be appropriate to see consensus clearly. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 10:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organisation is clearly notable. However, it needs more content, with references. BlueRobe (talk) 09:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indiecision[edit]

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

Appears to be spam that probably should have been speedy deleted. All cites are links to the website itself (typical recursive "This site is notable because it says it is" logic). I have tagged a separate related article, NH7 Radio for speedy deletion as well (it is being contested). The talk page in that article uses Indiecision as tenuous support for notability. Quartermaster (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'll do the leg work... Mentions in Times of India, NME Livemint.com (connected to Hindustan Times), Indian Express, Time Out Mumbai. Not quite enough yet... More extensive coverage in The Global Post but not sure on that one's status as WP:RS, Mumbai Mirror has some good coverage as well. If the Global edition of CNN has the blog's editor writing for them I would consider that, and if Campaign Asia (Google cache paywall evade) also interviews him, I think that indicates his and/or his blog/magazine's notability. The editor is clearly good at self-promotion, but if I read one more time that Indiecision is the leading info point for Indian alternative music I might cry... There might not be quite enough sources in the views of some editors, but we should remember that this is all happening in India, and I believe we have a duty to counter WP:Systemic bias. Bigger digger (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Four of the five references used are to the same website of the subject of the article. --Quartermaster (talk) 01:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought you were criticising the sources I found. To others, QM is referring to the existing article, which is obviously ripe for clean-up. Bigger digger (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am making the argument based on the sources you listed. If it was based solely on what is currently in the article, it would be a strong delete vote.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree, the article is currently useless, but my comment was directed at QM, which is why it's underneath his comment. To 137.122, feel free to delete this comment and yours above, as it doesn't add anything. Don't undo it as I have edited my earlier comment for (hopefully!) some extra clarity... Bigger digger (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - While Bigger digger really hunted down sources, it amounts mostly to passing mentions, except for the Mumbai Mirror, or coverage by Arjun S Ravi which is not an independent source (there appears to be more coverage of that person than of Indiecision). Can't really say there is significant independent coverage of Indiecision, thus unless more independent sources are found, I'd say delete.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Consensus is not clear. Relisting a second time. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 10:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject. Lack of notability at this time. Cindamuse (talk) 11:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with IP 137's views on the "sources". Subject does not appear to pass WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Noir Movement[edit]

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

Article fails to meet notability guidelines, particularly WP:BAND "1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable." Both the sources given are self published. A further search on google book produces no useful works and a google search just indicates a presence on myspace, facebook and blogs: all considered not to be non-trivial reliable sources. The article looks like self-promotion. Although tagged for notability since June, no further sources to indicate notability have been forthcoming.--SabreBD (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
After Ron's re-listing, there have been no comments. Hence relisting for the second time. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 10:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks notability shown through significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject. Lack of notability at this time. Cindamuse (talk) 11:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Beaumont (journalist)[edit]

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

This article is just a collection of quotes by this person; there's nothing here that's actually about them. There's also a lot of unsourced opinions ("believed to be", "considered by" etc). There was some involvement in the Keith Richards snorting thing, but as a BLP1E thing that's definitely about Keef not the journo. Chris (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Long established journalist writing for The Guardian, NME, Uncut and other publications, as well as a published author. However it's an absolutely terrible article, much of which can be excised. yorkshiresky (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It should be kept. It needs a lot of editing though. But hope some people are going to contribute to this article to make it a better article. bhavitgoyal (talk · contribs) 8th September 2010 3:52 IST

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 23:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No additional comments post the previous re-listing; hence I'm relisting to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 10:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. Passes WP:CREATIVE #1 - "widely cited by peers or successors." Tevildo (talk) 21:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Jujutacular ^talk 00:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NHRIs WORKING GROUP ON BUSINESS AND HUMAN RIGHTS[edit]

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

Contested prod. Long-winded article written in bureaucratic gobbledygook. Original research, promotional and unencyclopaedic. andy (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following article for the same reasons:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 10:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - All the proposed problems are listed under Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems. None of them are reasons to delete. Is it notable and verifiable? A quick check seems to show yes. --Triwbe (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a working group of an NGO it is possibly notable, but I cannot see that it is WP:GNG. I will not oppose its deletion as it stands to clean up the promotion problem. --Triwbe (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR is a sound reason for deletion, at the very least. It states that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully". But both articles are entirely a synthesis of primary sources which are used indiscriminately and which advance a position, contrary to WP:SYNTH. For example NHRIs "are uniquely placed" and "play an important role". The original author contested the prod so it's fair to assume he rejects this argument and isn't prepared to fix either of these articles, hence this AfD. andy (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I clean forgot about the probable copyvios in both articles. andy (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR is not a reason for deletion. It is a reason to remove the OR leaving the sourced info. If there is a copyvio (and maybe there is) the it should be a WP:CSD#G12. --Triwbe (talk) 13:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO the entire article is OR, which makes removing it a bit tricky... andy (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I failed to do my homework properly, and have just discovered National human rights institutions and a host of related articles. My bad. Redirection is probably the best option - there's nothing worth merging. andy (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to WP:OR is getting information from reliable sources. But I have also been thinking if redirection if sources cannot be found. --Triwbe (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having got over my embarrassment about missing the main article I now think that a redirection is pointless because it would certainly classify as an implausible typo per CSD-R3. andy (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as copyvio. Here's one page from which text seems to have been lifted: LINK. Dollars to donuts that this entire unreadable-at-any-speed piece of flotsam in the Wikipedia knowledge lake was completely cut-and-pasted. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Started by a single-purpose account, User:DIHR, which acronym-finder tells me incidentally stands for "Danish Institute for Human Rights." I don't suppose that surprises anyone. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright status of the text is given here. It may or may not be compatible with Wikipedia. The name though does show a strong case for WP:COI.--Triwbe (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless this gets a total rewrite, it's just unencyclopedic spam at the moment. I really pity people who think this kind of writing makes you sound smart. Hairhorn (talk) 18:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete besides WP:OR and copyvio problems, this work group within an organization doesn't notable to me at all.—Chris!_c/t 19:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unencyclopedic, promotional in tone.--Dmol (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Bailey (Stuntman)[edit]

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

There is footage of this incident on Youtube, but I'm not convinced being a fatally incompetent stuntman is noteworthy enough for a dedicated article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If sole criterion for notability is this single terminal event, shouldn't be in Wikipedia. --Quartermaster (talk) 13:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject is not deserving of a biographical article, although the circumstance of his death could probably be cited in the Wikipedia article listing notable unusual deaths. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 01:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a memorial. Edward321 (talk) 14:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to FOB Ramrod kill team . Reading the comments, it does seem inappropriate to make an article about him individually. (I wouldn't rule it out permanently; conceivably enough will be written eventually about him as an individual). Even if we had no BLP rules, I'd consider it inappropriate. I do not see how merging to a group article is in any way censorship & I thank Hiberniantears for starting a suitable one for the purpose DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam C. Winfield[edit]

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

With an acknowledgment that this issue is recent and possibly well covered, I think it's WP:1E and isn't notable on its own. Would support a merge into another article assuming there is such an article (not sure what that would be right now). Shadowjams (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Shadowjams (talk) 09:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy/Strong keep - highly notable, tons of sources and surely a notable person allegedly committing one of the most serious war crime cases to emerge from the War in Afghanistan. WP:1E does not apply as the crimes were committed in stages and a long period of time. Surely a notable person that people want to know about. IQinn (talk) 10:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An enlisted soldier committed "one of the most serious war crime[s] to emerge from the War in Afghanistan."? That's your reason? That needs a source, and that also needs some historical context. Shadowjams (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That needs some historical context? What do you mean by that? There are tons of sources that establish notability and there are tons of sources for "one of the most serious war crime[s] to emerge from the War in Afghanistan." This is fully verified. Our nominator as many other people obviously have not heard about it and the people who allegedly committed it what is a very strong reason why we should have the article. IQinn (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place to discuss the magnitude of war crimes. Equating an enlisted soldier's transgression with "the most serious war crime" is a bold statement on its own, and even if true, isn't one that the 1E criteria is relevant to directly. Shadowjams (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The magnitude of the alleged war crime could be important to established notability and "one of the most serious war crimes" used by WP:RS just adds to already established notability. If you personally think WP:1E is relevant here than please have a look at WP:VAGUEWAVE and explain. IQinn (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, he asks for a reference for this bold opinion, which I have asked as well. bahamut0013^words _deeds 00:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did some work on this article two days ago. One of the weaknesses I decided to address was to see whether the assertion in the article could be sourced to an WP:RS. It didn't take very long to determine that it could. And I changed the article to reflect that -- two days ago. Now, personally, my interpretation of our deletion policies is that those weighing in have an obligation to express informed opinions. Personally, I think this requires spending at least 30 seconds with your favorite search engine, to see if the topic is more notable than the current state of the article would indicate. Personally, I think that those who weigh in should actually read the article, or at least more than the first screenful if the article is long. And, personally, I think those weighing in with a "delete" opinion really ought to check in, periodically, to see if the article had been improved, in ways that address their concerns. I think they should do so even if they don't weigh in with additional comments.
- "US soldiers 'plotted to slay Afghans'". The Australian. 2010-08-27. Retrieved 2010-09-15. Two were also hit with grenades in one of the most serious war-crimes cases to emerge from the Afghan war.
- "U.S. soldiers accused of murders". National Post. 2010-09-10. Retrieved 2010-09-16. The charges are part of one of the widest-ranging U.S. war-crime cases to emerge from the conflict in Afghanistan.
- Marc Hujer (2010-09-13). "'I Need to Be Secretive about This'". Der Spiegel. Retrieved 2010-09-17. News of such atrocities, committed by international troops who are supposed to be bringing stability and justice to Afghanistan, has a particularly serious effect in his country, says Nader Nadery of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission. On the other hand, he adds, the investigations against the soldiers in the United States show "that such atrocities do not go unpunished, and that the men must stand trial for their misconduct."
- Lynn Herrmann (2010-09-10). "US Army 'kill team' allegedly murdered Afghan innocents for sport". Digital Journal. Retrieved 2010-09-17. The charges appear to be some of the most serious war crimes to have emerged in the Afghan occupation, an occupation that President Obama recently referred to as a "tough slog."
- Hal Bernton (2010-09-08). "Stryker soldiers allegedly took corpses' fingers". Seattle Times. Retrieved 2010-09-17. As part of one of the widest-ranging U.S. war-crime cases to emerge from the conflict in Afghanistan, charging documents released Wednesday allege soldiers took finger bones and other body parts cut from Afghan corpses.
- Marc Hujer (2010-09-13). "Did US Soldiers Target Afghan Civilians? War Crime Allegations Threaten to Harm America's Image". Der Spiegel. Retrieved 2010-09-17. If the claims made in the indictment are true, the crimes committed by the kill team went beyond the killing of Afghan civilians. In fact, the men allegedly devised "scenarios" for the killings, a kind of script that included plausible pretexts for the murders. Gibbs is believed to have been the planner, while the younger team members did the shooting. The men apparently treated killing as a sport.

Speedy/Strong delete. This is a BLP and as such, sensationalism of this nature is highly inappropriate. Yes, the crime is heinous and widely reported, however, this is not the place to report news. See → WP:NOTNEWS. The subject is only CHARGED with a crime. This is an encyclopedia, not a news media outlet. There is a different set of standards here. At this point, inclusion of this case on Wikipedia implies general acceptance of his guilt in the public eye, regardless of whether the terms "charged" and "allegedly" are used in the article. If this article is kept and the subject is found not guilty, it will most certainly be time for a Wikipedia prayer circle to either quickly revise the article to reflect the finding of the court or delete it altogether. Cindamuse (talk) 12:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Only charged with a crime? He was charged with conspiracy and murder in one of the most serious war crimes in the war of Afghanistan. If you see a problem with WP:NPOV than you are welcome to edit the article. Afd is not the right place to deal with neutrality. There is no reason to delete this article. Surely there is a lot to do as the article had been nominated only hours after its creation. This alleged crime and the people involved are highly notable and there is no reason given for deletion. There are tons of sources. We have the responsibility to inform our readers in a neutral way about all topics and we can not simply leave out things that we may do not like. IQinn (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, charged. Not convicted. The issue is not one of WP:NPOV, but one of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PERP. There are three criteria for inclusion listed at WP:PERP, of which Winfield meets ZERO. Specifically note according to WP:PERP, Someone accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured. The recommendations to keep, while offered with good faith, are ill-advised. This article is highly inappropriate and should be deleted as quickly as possible. Cindamuse (talk) 19:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You state above that, in your opinion, Winfield meets "ZERO" of the criteria at WP:PERP. I followed your recommendation, looked at WP:PERP, and explained why I thought he fulfilled the third criteria. In your comments below have you tacitly acknowledged he does, after all, fulfill a criteria from WP:PERP?
  In your comment immediately above, and in your comment that immediately precedes it, you called this article "highly inappropriate", due to "sensationalism". A perception of sensationalism in our coverage of a topic that is itself worthy of coverage is simply not grounds for deletion, as per our deletion policies. If the topic itself is worthy of coverage, perceptions of problems with WP:NPOV, WP:OR, or WP:VER are supposed to be addressed on the article's talk page, or through the use of wikitags -- not deletion. Isn't your perceived concern over sensationalism just a concern over WP:NPOV, something that, if others agreed with you, could be addressed by rewriting the most sensational passages. In particular, if, like User:Shadowjams, your particular concern was over the assertion in the article that this was the "one of the most serious war crime[s] to emerge from the War in Afghanistan..." wasn't referenced, and wasn't attributed to WP:RS, please acknowledge that this passage has been rewritten so it is referenced and attributed to WP:RS. Geo Swan (talk) 14:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know what you're reading, but I never stated that the subject meets any criteria of WP:PERP. My concerns stand. This article cannot be rewritten as appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia short of a conviction. Cindamuse (talk) 15:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, in that case, would you please consider addressing my reasoning as to why Winfield does fulfill the third criteria? Geo Swan (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With all due respect, I have thoroughly addressed the comments in this AfD that assert that the article should be kept. However, I have not seen reason presented to keep the article that is in accordance and alignment with Wikipedia guidelines. Therefore, I believe continued discussion regarding your personal opinions and assertions in disregard of guidelines that clearly state that this article should be deleted, would be unfruitful. I am confident that the closing admin will recognize the concerns presented here. Cindamuse (talk) 16:27, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With all due respect, seem like you ask us to prove a negative. The article is notable and meets WP:GNG amd WP:PERP. Notability is established , all requirements for inclusion are given and no valid policy based argument stands against the inclusion. As an reliable encyclopedia we have the responsibility to cover all notable topics although we might personally would like to censor certain information. I think your continuous refusal to provide us with valid policy based arguments for deletion and your general refusal to discuss is not helpful. IQinn (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The most important thing missing from WP:NOT is wikipedia should not be a hagiography. Of course Winn is innocent until proven guilty. And, after drafting articles on more than a million individuals I think we should be pretty experienced how to draft a neutrally written article about individuals who face charges, without implying their guilt is a proven fact. Actually, I think the effect of suppressing our neutrally written, properly referenced, non-sensational articles, is directly counter the spirit of BLP, because it leaves our reader to rely on press coverage that is often not neutral, and is written from a sensational point of view. Geo Swan (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Sadads (talk) 19:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These alledged crimes were committed, if I understand correctly, by a number of soldiers of 5th Bde, 2nd Inf Div. Alternately, if we were looking for a place to put this info, the brigade/division article would be a possibility. This would also cover the alledged, rather than convicted, nature of the crime. 'War crimes allegations were directed towards a number of soldiers of the bde..' Buckshot06 (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: it's eminantly clear that the article as it stands violates WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP; however, the event is highly notable. Given that he is only one of twelve suspects, the article should be about the incident and not the individual(s) accused. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: FOB Ramrod kill team has been created and should be the target of the redirect, per precedent of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Dale Green. bahamut0013^words _deeds 12:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Redirect? To where? If you personally think WP:1E is relevant here than please have a look at WP:VAGUEWAVE and explain. Same with WP:PERP, the policy does not say that we can not have an article on a Perpetrator of one of the most serious war crime cases in recent history. We can not afford not to have an article on him. People want to know. More and more details are emerging for example that Adam Winfield sent messages to his father Christopher back to the States during the time of the alleged crimes in Afghanistan to alert him of the alleged crime. Christopher Winfield tried to contact the Army but they did not believe him. Our reader want to know about the alleged Perpetrators. IQinn (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely none of that addresses my point whatsoever. I did explain my reasoning instead of merely citing a policy link, so I don't get whey you are attempting to direct me to VAGUEWAVE. And PERP specifically does state that individuals with no further claim to notability than the event are not notable as a biography. Conversely, the claim that people want to know is a weak argument per WP:INTERESTING, WP:USEFUL, and WP:NOT#NEWS, which is the point of having notability criteria in the first place.

In any case, none of your arguments seem to refute my point that an article about the incident would better serve the encyclopedia than a biography about the individual. bahamut0013^words _deeds 23:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am pointing you to WP:VAGUEWAVE because you said "..the article as it stands violates WP:BLP1E.." without explaining how. So it would be nice if you could explain how.

You might also please explain why the article that more than fullfills our general notability guidelines can not be included under WP:NOT#NEWS. Simply pointing to policies is not enough.

Regarding WP:PERP, you are cherry picking one part of this policy that does not allow this biography while leaving out other parts that do. The policy specially allows biographies like this one. 3 ) The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual...' and that is doubtless the case here.

You !vote redirect and i ask you where you want to redirect to? Would be nice if you could answer my question. IQinn (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't acquit your intelligence well if you need me to explain to you how to apply a policy that states that a BLP with only one claim to fame isn't suitible for an article; it's pretty straight forward and I did exlain beyond a bare policy ref in my original vote. If you don't understand BLP1E, then you should be going to the talk page there, rather than disputing an active AfD. If you disagree, then don't toss out a strawman by asking me to explain that which you already understand. VAGUEWAVE shouldn't be used as an excuse to be lazy and not read the policy. Same goes for NOTNEWS.

Regarding PERP, your opinion does not pass. The motivation/execution of the alleged crime is not terribly unusual in a war zone that has been fraught with similar charges. In fact, I have yet to hear of this particular case, and I follow these kinds of headlines fairly well. You'll have to prove that your opinion that this charge meets criteria 3 of PERP is not the minority opinion for me to change my mind. Your accusation of cherry picking is simply outrageous.

In all, perhaps you could look to precedent here, such as the Haditha killings, perhaps. And no, I don't have a title in mind to redirect to, but that's open to discussion. bahamut0013^words _deeds 00:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that i fully understand WP:BLP1E and i am surprised that you just keep pointing to the policy without explaining how the policy is violated WP:VAGUEWAVE. WP:BLP1E does not apply. You claim the article violates WP:BLP1E but that is not the case so you have to explain. Yes simply pointing to policies is not enough. Same goes for NOTNEWS.

Regarding WP:PERP - There is no comparison with the Haditha killings. This here is much more unusual and serious as the soldiers planned to murder civilians for fun. I saw from you editing history that you are heavily editing Us military articles and you may have some insider knowledge i do not know about. You arguing that it is pretty usual for United army soldiers to form "kill teams" and to murder civilians for sport and to keep body parts like finger bones as war trophies? [9] I do not think so. This is and has been classified by tons of WP:RS as "one of the most serious war crimes" for a reason. IQinn (talk) 00:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WRT the intelligence of other contributors -- we are supposed to confine our comments to the issues. Any genuine doubts we have about other contributor's intelligence we should keep to ourselves. Geo Swan (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see from your continued rantings and ravings that I'm not going to get through to you, so I will no longer waste my time in attempting so. The closing admin will surely have the intelligence to see the wisdom of the argument. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rantings and ravings? Who do you mean Geo Swan or me? I strongly refuse that i was "ranting and raving". I think it would be better you continue the content discussion with valid policy based arguments if you disagree. IQinn (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - simple case of WP:BLP1E who has only been charged with a crime. However, a redirect to the event works, too. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After leaving my "keep" opinion above I did some work fixing the bare-naked URLs in this article, and in the article on the ringleader, Calvin Gibbs. The comment has been made above that Winfield was just "one of twelve" alleged perpetrators, and that whatever was worthy of coverage about them should be covered in one article, about "the event". I don't think we have enough detail to flesh out articles on all twelve alleged perpetrators, and I suggest the also-rans should be covered in an article that included the base where the murders occurred. The murders occurred when the GIs, all in Company B, where stationed at Forward Operating Base Ramrod. So, I think they should be covered in an article with a title like, "FOB Ramrod murder conspiracy".
The way I see it, an association with the conspiracy is not a "one event". The three murders we have heard about were spread over a four month period. Why shouldn't each be considered a separate event? As Iqinn noted above, Winfield is reported to have tried blow the whistle on the genuine perps. Winfield is not the only whistleblower. Three days after the third murder a newly arrived recruit tried to report that murder, and was severely beaten. The rings crimes came to light after the beating of that second whistleblower was investigated. In addition to the murders the ring is alleged to have, kept body parts of their victims' corpses, as trophies, robbed civilians and to have indulged in heavy use of hashish, which, like opium, is cheap and plentiful in Afghanistan.
The way I see it, as of September 16, 2010, Gibbs, and Winfield merit individual articles. The rest should be covered in an article on the ring, which should have a ((seealso))s for Gibbs and Winfield. Additional individuals may merit coverage in separate articles, as more details emerge.
Another contributor refers us to the WP:PERP section of WP:Notability (people). They quoted a passage from that section: "Someone accused of a crime is not guilty unless and until this is decided by a court of law. Editors must give serious consideration to not creating an article on an alleged perpetrator until a conviction is secured." As I wrote above, the wikipedia currently contains articles on something like one million individuals. I think we should know, by now, how to write articles on alleged perps, without implying their guilt had been proved. We should consider not creating an article on Winfield, "until a conviction is secured"? OK, what does the rest of the section say? The third of the three numbered points in the section says:
"The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. The assessment of notability on the basis of news coverage should follow the same criteria for assessing the notability of the crime, as above."

OK. The murder ring are alleged to have killed innocent civilians for thrills. I suggest this fulfills the "unusual" motivation clause in PERP. I suggest killing with a grenade, suddenly tossed over a wall, fulfills the "unusual" execution clause. Similarly keeping body parts of the victim's corpses fulfills the "unusual" execution clause. So, we considered not covering these individuals. And since they fulfill these earlier clauses of PERP they merit coverage. Geo Swan (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's absolutely nothing new or unusual about a war crime taking place in Afghanistan. And this specific incident is not a well-documented historic event. Reliable sources do not provide persistent significant coverage of Winfield's individual involvement in this incident. The content added to the article equates to a great amount of allegations, claims, and unproven charges. Again, inappropriate. Cindamuse (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You may be correct -- that there is "absolutely nothing new or unusual about a war crime taking place in Afghanistan." Although I have been following events there closely I don't know how common it is for GIs go into combat while high on drugs. I don't know how many GIs rob civilians. I don't know how common it is for GIs to kill civilians for kicks, or to keep body parts as trophies. If you served in Afghanistan, and you have first hand knowledge of how common these things are, I will remind you that you are not an WP:RS, and your experience just doesn't count, can't influence what goes into article space. If we go by what we can document, this is extremely unusual series of events. I remind you that the wikipedia's policies require us to stick strictly by what we can document. Even if, for the sake of argument, you and I and Iqinn and everyone else who works on these articles privately believe that this series of events is not unusual, the thing that would make this series of events remarkable is that, this time, charges were laid. Geo Swan (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The term "unusual" is subjective, yet, based on precedent, war crimes and incidents of this nature against civilians are nothing new. Cindamuse (talk) 07:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Common crime? Nothing new? Do you have some insider knowledge? Is it that what our troops usually do in Afghanistan? I think your exceptional claim that this is what our troops routinely do in Afghanistan needs some exceptional references for verification. IQinn (talk) 10:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I never used the words "common" or "routine". "Routine" and "unusual" are terms of understanding that reside at two ends of the spectrum. The conclusions that you have made are a misinterpretation of my comments. While war crimes and incidents of this nature against civilians are not the "norm", they remain nothing new. The fact that these incidents occur are no longer surprising when it comes to the war-torn areas in Asia and the Middle East. Sad as that may be. Cindamuse (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your claim is laughable. The alleged crime is so unusual that we simply can not afford not to have a biography on the alleged perpetrator without being accused of redacting information that might be unpleasant for the US or US military sympathizer. Nothing new? US army soldiers forming "kill teams" to murder Afghan civilians for sport and keeping body parts as war trophies? That is new and highly unusual whatever you personally think. Maybe you have insider knowledge? No i do not believe US troops usually do this in Afghanistan. Your claim that this is a usual crime is simply based on your personal opinion and (i beg your pardon) ridiculous. IQinn (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I never used the term "usual" either. You can beg all you want. The article is still inappropriate. Cindamuse (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you for admitting that. Fact is that this is an very unusual crime and that we can have an article under WP:PERP. No matter how much some would like to censor this. Not only we can have the article - we should. Inappropriate? Not at all. IQinn (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You may want to consider reviewing WP:INTHENEWS and WP:VALINFO. Cindamuse (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You may want to consider reviewing Wikipedia:Policy shopping and WP:VAGUEWAVE. Might be helpful, after you failed with WP:PERP and you are now simply throwing in two links to policies. I am still waiting for your policy based arguments why you personally think the article is Inappropriate. IQinn (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With all due respect, it's quite clear from my editing history that I have never resorted to simple policy shopping. However, it's quite clear from your editing history that you lack knowledge of the specific guidelines of which this deletion is proposed. Accordingly, I am simply offering assistance, presented in good faith, that may help you in future deletion discussions. As I stated above, "I have thoroughly addressed the comments in this AfD that assert that the article should be kept. However, I have not seen reason presented to keep the article that is in accordance and alignment with Wikipedia guidelines." In my opinion, continued dialogue with you would be unfruitful. I am confident that the closing admin will recognize the concerns presented here. Cindamuse (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With all due respect, you once again fails to provide us with policy based arguments for deletion. Even you have been ask for these arguments multiple times. Worst now you turning to ad hominum arguments what is considered as uncivil WP:civil. NO there is no luck of understanding of policy. You won't get your favorite version of Wikipedia by stating what you personally think is "Inappropiate" without finding policy based arguments and than even refuses to discuss. It is just the fact that you have failed to provide us with valid policy based arguments why we should delete valuable content. No valid policy based arguments that would support a deletion. The article is notable and meets WP:GNG amd WP:PERP. Notability is established , all requirements for inclusion are given and no valid policy based argument stands against the inclusion. As an reliable encyclopedia we have the responsibility to cover all notable topics although we might personally would like to censor certain information. IQinn (talk) 21:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for acknowledging the subjective element in how we reach these decisions.
I agree that we should not, in general, cover incidents that are not out of the ordinary. Local newspapers may cover local murders. National newspapers don't. Similarly, we don't cover every individual murder in the USA, because, from a distant perspective, they are almost all very similar, and anyone who wants to know how murders are usually investigated, and how murder suspects are usually charged, prosecuted and punished can learn all they need to know from our articles on the US legal system
We do cover some murders, when there are exceptional circumstances, like, when one of the parties was already a celebrity, or when the view that the was a miscarraige of justice is proven, or widely held.
Now you may personally believe that the events Gibbs and Winfield are alleged to have participated in are nothing new. But, as I wrote above, there is no press coverage to back up that view. And, in contrast to the demonstrably common high murder rate in the USA, readers can't read about how other murders of civilians by GIs in Iraq or Afghanistan are usually prosecuted, in the articles on the US military justice system. Only a handful of instances have come to light, and each instance that has come to light has been sufficiently different that they are all remarkable, and worthy of coverage here. As I wrote above, without regard to how common you think this kind of incident is: "Even if, for the sake of argument, you and I and Iqinn and everyone else who works on these articles privately believe that this series of events is not unusual, the thing that would make this series of events remarkable is that, this time, charges were laid." Geo Swan (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are asking him to prove a negative in referencing that this manner of war crime is not unusual, which is quite unfair. Your opinion is that this incident stands out, and his opinion is that it does not. It seems unlikely that further debate is going to be productive on that matter of tension regarding notability, and thus unlikely to sway a vote. bahamut0013^words _deeds 14:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Geo Swan has brought forward a founded analysis with tons of supporting arguments why this is an unusual crime and i think there is nothing unfair here. You are welcome to continue the discussion with valid counterarguments or not. In the case you can not find valid counter arguments, we have to assume that he is right and this is indeed an unusual crime. IQinn (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Calvin Gibbs under a new article name which refers to the events rather than the names of the accused, I suggest Kill team murders. Although not strictly a single event, it seems clear to me that the concept behind WP:BLP1E should apply here. The crimes themselves are distinguished from other recent war crimes because of the physical trophies and the threats against other unit members to keep them quiet. Thundermaker (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WRT the name for the articles on the thrill-kill-ring, you suggest Kill team murders. Above I suggested "FOB Ramrod murder conspiracy". Out of sensitivity to those who expressed a concerns over sensationalism, I considered and rejected article names that contained the phrase "thrill-kill". I suggest your title is slightly more sensational that mine. My suggested title also states where the events occurred, at FOB Ramrod. I am not happy with either your suggested name, or mine, because the conspiracy allegedly involved other crimes, including drug use, robbing civilians, and beating fellow GIs. Alternate names include:
  - FOB Ramrod kill team,
  - FOB Ramrod kill team investigation,
  - FOB Ramrod kill team conspiracy investigation,
  - FOB Ramrod kill team conspiracy,
  - FOB Ramrod thrill-kill ring
  - FOB Ramrod thrill-kill ring investigation
- WRT Gibbs, Gibbs is the most notable of the alleged perpetrators. He was the ringleader, he gave the orders for the murders, he gave the orders for the coverup, he gave the orders for the other whistleblower to be given a beat down. He was the one who threatened those he thought might squeal. Further, he was a veteran of previous tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is the ((afd)) of Adam Winfield, and I would be uncomfortable to see the Gibbs article merged into an omnibus article as an afterthought. Geo Swan (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not stuck on my specific suggestion, fine with any of yours up to where you add "thrill", which is an assumption of motivation. The shorter the better, so FOB Ramrod kill team would be my top choice. You are correct that this is not the right forum to discuss deletion of Calvin Gibbs, although some of the same arguments apply. IMHO it will be cleaner if we resolve this AFD first before starting the second discussion. Do we have a consensus to create FOB Ramrod kill team and then redirect Adam Winfield there? Thundermaker (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about something along the lines of FOB Ramrod war crime investigation? The kill team part seems a bit sensationalized to me and is also putting the cart before the horse in the sense that no one has been convicted of being on kill team. If convictions come, then consider changing the name again. Just a thought. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "kill team" is mildly sensational; I support using that term because it was allegedly invented by the perps. "war crimes" is equally sensational IMHO, and "investigation" would seem to restrict the scope of the article -- eventually we will want to include details about trials and reparations resulting from the investigation. Thundermaker (talk) 16:41, 17 September 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 ^confess 15:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to a new article on the event itself. A bio on this individual fails WP:BLP1E. SnottyWong ^confess 15:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain how the article could possible fail WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E? He is one of the alleged perpetrator of a major crime that took place over many month with a number of events. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It has been explained numerous times, but it's rather pointless to continue as you continually refuse to listen. Why don't you stop going back and forth and let the closing admin decide? Do you really believe either side will be swayed? I'm sure you don't, but I'm also positive this bantering will continue. Oh, and feel free to remind me of WP:CIVIL and Ad hominem, which you always like to throw out at editors with whom you disagree. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, nobody has has given valid arguments how this article fails WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E. That's why i keep asking. {Yeaah pretty WP:UNCIVIL and Ad hominem your comment never mind there are other places to deal with that.) Your comment suggest to me that you do not have an answer how this article violates WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E. The crime took place over months with a number of events so that WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E does not apply. So instead of wasting our time with Ad hominem arguments you may give us valid policy based arguments that would support your claim. Notability is established under WP:GNG amd WP:PERP. There is no reason to censor notable information. If you can not provide arguments how this article violates WP:BIO1E/WP:BLP1E, than we have to assume that your claim is wrong. So i suggest you give it a try. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rename This seems just like cases such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steven Dale Green and should be treated similarly. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rename with Calvin Gibbs into something like FOB Ramrod war crime investigation. Location (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rename Merge with Calvin Gibbs and rename the article to become an article about their alleged crime. These aren't biographical articles. Both articles are almost entirely about the event -- there is very little information about the perpetrators, who are not known for anything other than this event. It's clear that the event is a notable one that should be documented in a Wikipedia article. I don't have an opinion about what the article's title should be. --Orlady (talk) 18:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge Changing my vote, as the merge option is better and this guy is essentially being tried in the press right now. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have created FOB Ramrod kill team in the event there is a need to merge somewhere for BLP issues. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People. You cannot make unsourced negative statements about a living person here. This page is so full of them that I have requested that it be deleted and started over. Herostratus (talk) 04:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense at all. Just tag or remove the unsourced and potentially slanderous statements that you find. Dream Focus 20:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The person gets ample media coverage for what was a notable event. This is something that will be in history books, and will potentially shape laws and regulations. Dream Focus 20:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge to the FOB Ramrod kill team article (or other similar article). I know that a lot of people think it's important to get every piece of information up about every news event, but there is a very good reason for WP:BLP1E--we simply cannot make an article about this person until we have extremely strong evidence (I would say that we would need, at a minimum, a conviction, along with evidence that this is more important than a typical crime occurring during war) before the perpetrator of a crime (if, he, in fact, did commit a crime) gets an article. This is because living people deserve the right to not have Wikipedia compound difficulties in their own lives. WP:BLP1E overrides notability and sourcing except in cases where we are certain that the event in question is highly important. It is very possible that Winfield may eventually meet the criteria necessary to surpass BLP1E; but we cannot know that now, nor possibly for a long time. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to an article about the event). Person gets charged (good). Media reports allegations (good). Editors create a fake BLP (bad). This is an encyclopedia, see WP:NOTNEWS. In six months, some hard facts should be available and the question of whether this individual warrants a biographical article can be revisited. If there is a conviction, the name of the living person can be recorded in an encyclopedic article; until then, it's just speculation about an alleged WP:BLP1E. Johnuniq (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. –MuZemike 00:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get a live[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism; WP:MADEUP, WP:NOTDICT. Purportedly used to insult and annoy other players of certain online games, such as World of Warcraft. Unfortunately it doesn't fit a speedy criterion, and the PROD was removed by its creator. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A google search returns no hits. --Stickee (talk) 09:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary and it is a non-notable neologism. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources. Rirunmot 15:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
Speedy delete it fits no specific criterion, but I'm strongly in favour of IARing and getting this gone right now. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - What, there's no Speedy number for immediate exclusion of poorly written, grammatically challenged, unsourced original essays about non-notable neologisms? Carrite (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, WP:IAR or the inevitable WP:SNOW. Hairhorn (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Wikipedia:MADEUP —Chris!_c/t 19:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources. Search past WPVG Talk.) • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Get a life. Nifboy (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Underground[edit]

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

no real claim to notability ("most notable" for having their music on a non notable show, releases not on important label, touring lacks coverage (unearthed bios are written by the bands)), lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. (prod removed in 2008, 2nd prod removed because there should not be a 2nd). duffbeerforme (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for bands. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most notable for a theme song on community access? Delete. Gigs (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tenterfield Country Muster[edit]

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

I see no notability here. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Just a small country music festival for a maximum of 2000 people. COI article creation. Prod declined because creator was not notified. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. No coverage found. --MelanieN (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hanging Perverts[edit]

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

No secondary sources from a basic google search other than plot summaries, only sources provided about the film in the article is IMDb and the trailer. Notability is not met. BOVINEBOY2008 08:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Available sources (or the lack thereof) seem to indicate this is a non-notable student film. IMDB is not a WP:RS, and no significant coverage in actual reliable sources appears to be found. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of awards, critical review, or well, anything that would make this remotely meet notability for a film. -- Whpq (talk) 15:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Axella Johannesson[edit]

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

I can't find the significant coverage in reliable sources that we need to establish notability, so I believe this artiste fails the notability guidelines. References in the article are not of the standard we need. Recommending delete. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that artist meets WP:MUSIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks coverage to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firebot[edit]

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

Article fails to establish that either Firebot were important or notable. Delete. NotARealWord (talk) 07:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Mini-Cons. Mathewignash (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent reliable sources. Fails GNG. Skinny87 (talk) 12:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete REALLY obscure, unlikely substantial reliable sources exist. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Mini-Cons. Why are people so intent on deleting these articles instead of redirecting to the appropriate character lists? --Divebomb (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poor sources and lack of notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Arguments based on WP:GNG being satisfied are strong. Whether this can or should be merged into the OpenSolaris article can continue on the article's talk page. Jujutacular ^talk 18:19, 23 September 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)).

OpenIndiana[edit]

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

Delete. Fails notability per WP:ORG. This is an announcement of a new development project based on the cancellation of the OpenSolaris operating system. The announcement of this new project was made September 14, 2010. The premise is to inherit notability based on that of OpenSolaris. Statements are made that this new project is the continuation of OpenSolaris. Sounds like a possible change in the name and direction of the development team. If so, another option would be to merge OpenIndiana with OpenSolaris.

There is a lack of notability established through significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. An independent source is a point of media or publication which describes a topic from a disinterested perspective. Published works produced by those affiliated with the subject are not considered reliable. Considering the target audience of sources culled from the publications provided, the references are presented by professional industry media of limited interest and circulation. The publications have established an affiliated, direct interest in the subject and are therefore, not independent. Use of sources of this nature, does not establish or support notability. Accordingly, notability of OpenIndiana at this point, is not yet established independent of OpenSolaris. Cindamuse (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. The arguments made meant that if Wikipedia hosted an article about Wikipedia during the first month of operation, that article should have been deleted. They also try to imply that OpenIndiana is the same as OpenSolaris, ignoring the explanations on the OpenIndiana website which show how it is different. There is a lot of coverage in 'notable' sources, in fact even I've written about it, though I haven't added the link here. I'm really not certain why the article was put up for deletion, the reasons given make no sense, nor do the arguments. The article should be retained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanTerrorist (talk • contribs) 16:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that individuals below have been led here due to a lot of off-wiki canvassing on Twitter, asking people to participate in this AfD in order to save the article. Added ((notavote)) header. Cindamuse (talk) 14:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is balloney. I just went through the history list of this AfD debate and the user contributions of the users who have posted on this page. There is only one who wasn't posting before this debate started and that user has made perfectly reasonable and correct contributions to the debate. So now stop this! You were right that WP:COI claims in your direction don't do anybody any good in the debate, but the same goes for sour grapes from your side. I've already asked for an admin to close this debate because it's become pointless. If this manner of debate continues on this page, I'm going to ask to have the page locked pending closing. -- BenTels (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ben, honestly, you have been the most egregious with personal attacks in this discussion. Please watch your tone. The canvassing is clear on Twitter and reflected in this discussion. You can also run a google search and find quite a bit of other canvassing. Do your homework. You can also view the request here, [10] where the project lead is requesting a Wikipedia page for OpenIndiana. Clearly, Wikipedia is being used for promotional purposes. Cindamuse (talk) 15:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Who have I attacked personally? I am stating (correctly) that the debate is decaying into infighting, and concluding that we've passed the point where the debate can sensibly continue. I'm sure you can run all sorts google checks, but I didn't and won't (since I don't wish to participate in the infighting). Following your claim above I looked at who has been posting and their histories on Wikipedia. If there has been canvassing (I'm not going to look), I can find no serious trace of its effects in the debate history in the sense of an influx of people signing up just to participate. And therefore no basis for your hint/claim to the contrary. -- BenTels (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is quite clear that I have been personally attacked by you. It is also clear that much of the infighting was instigated by you. Cindamuse (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just to be clear, I have no intention of launching a personal attack against anybody. However, I have enough experience both on the Dutch Wikipedia and working in industry to recognize when a meeting/debate is going sour and when you should pull the plug to prevent worse. On this page we have accusations of WP:COI, threats of bans and blocks and people suggesting that other people are joining Wikipedia just to sway the debate. In the meantime the actual debate regarding the issue has all but ceased, with an exception of two original content-based posts in (from memory) three days. We are factually not debating anymore. -- BenTels (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - There have most certainly been accusations of a COI, but I see no threats of a block or ban, or any suggestions that people are joining Wikipedia to sway a debate. Why do you keep commenting? I thought you said this discussion was dead. Cindamuse (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        (The above two contributions from Cindamuse together): No, I am not attacking you personally. Most certainly I am disagreeing with the reasoning behind two things you have done in regards to this page, but I am not attacking you personally. If you wish me to elaborate, please let me know on my talk page, as we should take this offline and not continue here. The same goes for anything more that is to be said about your claim that I have instigated anything. If you wish me to elaborate on the threats of a block or ban, or any suggestions that people are joining Wikipedia to sway a debate, please likewise on my talk page. Regarding this discussion was dead, that is not what I said and certainly not in the same meaning in which I said it (and I suspect you know that); if further elaboration on that is required, again, please let me know on my talk page. -- BenTels (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Not necessary. I stand by my statements. Cindamuse (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Acknowledged. -- BenTels (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OpenIndiana this is not a change of name for OpenSolaris. OpenSolaris was ostensibly a Sun Microsystems project that was closed by Oracle on Sun's acquisition. This left anyone using OpenSolaris in the lurch facing the choice between the devil and deep blue sea. Pay Oracle prohibitive license fees or use an unsupported OS. OpenIndiana is re-establishment of a new community based organisation to overcome betrayal of trust from an open source sponsor.

This is an important technology industry milestone. http://dlc.openindiana.org/tmp/slides.pdf

Already preliminary google shows: http://milek.blogspot.com/2010/09/openindiana.html http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/6902-Openindiana.html http://www.osnews.com/story/23807/OpenIndiana_Officially_Announced http://unixmen.com/news-today/1165-project-openindiana-a-continuation-of-the-opensolaris-os-to-be-announced-next-week http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODU4OA

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Haynesp (talk • contribs) 07:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC) — Haynesp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Keep~~ Comment (replacement vote below): There are some interesting points on the Talk:OpenIndiana page that are relevant here, made by User:Lewellyn. I'll summarize them to keep the discussion centralized:

On notability: "[OpenIndiana is] the second Illumos-based distro (afaik), and the first "from scratch" as SchilliX is formerly a distro based on the Sun trees. Being the first distro created solely for the Illumos codebase is surely notable, at least if MCC Interim Linux is."
On the formal basis of this deletion request: "And, it clearly does not fit the criteria for deletion. The article is NOT about an organisation, which could be eligible under the criteria, it is about a PROJECT, as is clearly stated."

In addition, Haynesp is correct: it is factually incorrect to say that OpenIndiana is a renaming of OpenSolaris. OpenIndiana is a project fork, not the same project rechristened. That is in fact the whole point of OpenIndiana, since OpenSolaris was summarily killed by Oracle.

Which brings me back to something that I said on the talk page to challenge the speedy deletion: it's a pointless act to delete the page. Sure, you can delete it today. But given the interest that already exists among Solaris developers (including former Sun and Oracle employees) and the fact that they already have downloads up, someone will just have to recreate the page a few days from now. Might as well leave it now and improve it. -- BenTels (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no evidence of notability. Currently the only references are to openindiana.org and another brief announcement of the project, and to announcement of the discontinuation of OpenSolaris. We do not keep articles on the basis "it is not notable yet, but we think it will become notable at some time in the future". "Being the first distro created solely for the Illumos codebase is surely notable" may or may not be true in some senses of "notable" (that is a matter for individual judgement) but it is certainly not valid as far as Wikipedia's notability criteria are concerned. BenTels says that the article is about a "project", not an organisation. It is perhaps debatable whether a "project" is an organisation, but that is in any case irrelevant, as either way there is no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Correction: User:Lewellyn raised the point of project rather than organization, not I (fairness in attribution). He is correct, by the way: an open source project certainly involves a community, but it is more than a community alone. And, as he and and haynesp pointed out as well, the claim of a lack of notability is already questionable.
  In addition, I would like to submit for your consideration a new thought that has occurred to me while typing this contribution: notability is linked to its field. The Bertrand–Diquet–Puiseux theorem, for example, is considered notable for its notability among mathematicians (i.e within its field), not because it is a mainstay of conversation among the general public. OpenIndiana is a software project, but it is also an open source project and community, which was formed in the wake of a controversy over Oracle cutting off support for open development of Solaris. Within the context of open source, that alone makes it a notable project, subject and article. -- BenTels (talk) 10:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With respect to frequent Wikipedia editors OpenIndiana is important to the community. Within hours of release download rate was 800Mbp (see twitter page). The significance of support goes beyond just a new OS in its own right but a transition from well funded closed source enterprise technologies, to open source, cloud ones. Pages on Wikipedia to promote this is entirely appropriate. Proposals by some open source communities to mute the voice of other others, not. Haynesp (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC) — Haynesp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:IMPORTANT is not a valid reason for keeping an article. Neither is its value as a promotional tool. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/feature/1733342/open-indiana-aims-default-free-solaris-distribution

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/10/openindiana_launch/

http://www.sdtimes.com/FROM_THE_EDITORS_CONSULTING_THE_ORACLE/By_SD_TIMES_EDITORIAL_BOARD/About_ORACLE_and_SOLARIS/34636

http://www.infoworld.com/t/unix/illumos-aims-clone-dying-opensolaris-456

http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/OpenIndiana-statt-OpenSolaris-1079302.html

http://www.golem.de/1009/77997.html

http://www.pro-linux.de/news/1/16165/opensolaris-ableger-openindiana-veroeffentlicht.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.228.157.5 (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC) — 217.228.157.5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Oh, nice list. Thanks for the references; I've incorporated the nicest of them into the article!
Not only that, but, given the depth of coverage in the first four of them, I'm going to suggest diplomatically that the notion of lacking notability has been overtaken by the times. -- BenTels (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Those references simply verify that as a recent launch of a new project, the subject is too new to have established notability at this time. Cindamuse (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: I'm sorry, but what you said here is just plain wrong. And leads me to believe that you didn't read any of those references (particularly the InfoWorld, SD Times and Register one, let alone any of the German or Dutch references, some of which are more in-depth than just the announcement). It also smacks a bit of changing the rules halfway through the game (from it's not notable from lack of coverage to it's not notable due to lots of coverage).
  There's a parallel discussion going on on the German site about the article there, where a number of people have made nasty remarks about the subject matter expertise of people calling the article not notable. I'm not going to do that here since I don't see the necessity, but given the interests you state on your user page, the comment above and the original comment in which you invoked WP:ORG, I am going to ask you a question of conscience (which means I don't expect you to publish the answer but I would like you to consider it for yourself).
  
  Let me start by painting you a picture. OpenIndiana is an open source project. One of the thousands started each year. One of the hundreds of thousands in existence. SourceForge, for example, hosts over 240.000 projects alone – most of which never get mentioned anywhere. Apache (a really big player in Java Enterprise OSS) hosts a couple of hundred, most of which never get mentioned anywhere (and again, they are a big and specialized player and have some really impressive stuff on offer). Even a vastly important project like Apache Tomcat didn't get international press coverage upon launch and new releases usually don't get coverage either (and Tomcat is probably the most widely used servlet container in the world). All of this is true — and yet, a startup announcement for a project that will release a clone product of a (by now) very small niche operating system got picked up by the international technical press. They all feel that the event is noteworthy, despite the fact that it is not a hot innovation in the technical sense (it's just OpenSolaris forked and the lord knows you could suffocate in all the Unix clones and forks available today). Hell, with those statistics OpenIndiana is notable simply for the coverage it got (but that's not the point). They know that OpenIndiana is notable in their gut, as does everybody with a software engineering background and an interest in OSS.
  And there's a reason for that: it has to do with the way Oracle is positioning itself in relation to the open source community and how it is treating the OSS projects it inherited from Sun. It has to do with Oracle's reputation vis-a-vis open source, with months of worry and uncertainty about what they were going to do with Java (for which Sun formed a very open community and on basis of which Oracle is now suing Google). It has to do with those same worries in the OpenSolaris community, followed by Oracle actually nixing OpenSolaris. And it has to do with the vague idea that if there is a fork in one area, there may be a fork in the other as well. It has to do with the idea that there may be a serious showdown between COTS software and OSS. That's why the announcement is noteworthy to everybody in the field and why OpenIndiana is notable, simply for its existence.
  
  Now, I said I was going to ask you a question of conscience. And we're almost there, except for a few run-up questions (and please excuse me if it sounds like I'm getting nasty about it, I'm trying not to). First of all, did you know any of the above (don't answer that one online, that one's just for your internal consideration)? Were you aware of the attitudes of the OSS communities and Oracle over the last few months and the concerns among the first about the latter (don't answer that one online either)? Were you aware that it was even an existing issue (don't answer that one online either)?
  So here's the question, at long last (and again, don't answer it online if you don't want to): are you sure you are sufficiently invested in the subject matter to make a proper determination of whether this article is notable or not?
  
  Again, I apologize if it seems I'm getting nasty. But you have to understand, your telling me (us) that OpenIndiana is not noteworthy just because it is new is like me telling you (with an interest in history subjects here on Wikipedia) that the Balfour Declaration isn't notable because it's just a letter of intent for a minor land deal. Or that Æthelred I of Northumbria is not notable because he never got much mention in the New York Times. -- BenTels (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First of all, please know that I did not read anything "nasty" in your questions or comment. I fully believe your comments and commitment to this article are offered in good faith. My professional background from the 90s, over a span of about three years includes serving as a member of Sun's HR Business Advisory Council. I also worked closely with Larry Ellison and designed a comprehensive image/branding package. I served as a loaned executive and networked with Larry Ellison and Scott McNealy, as well as various other executives from the San Jose area raising over $7 million for United Way. Although computer/software technology is not my specialty, I have several friends who work/ed in those areas for both Sun and Oracle. They have often shared their frustrations, concerns, and uncertainties with me over the past couple of years. I am peripherally aware of the power shifting going on, along with the issues which you have presented. I am very aware of the current lawsuit regarding Google. My conscience remains clear. All of this has nothing to do with the ability to identify notability according to guidelines and criteria established by Wikipedia. The article and OpenIndiana project continues to lack notability. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Considering the close relationship you esposed with the company executives which were and are currently involved with trying to drag the free OpenSolaris community developers and users into a pay-for-use model of Oracle Solaris and Oracle SolarisExpress, the common wikipedia contributor might question your neutrality in trying to get the OpenIndiana wikipedia article deleted. Not to suggest that your suggestion to delete the article is malicious, but any common wikipedia contributor reading your comments to delete an article with such enthusiasm could interpret your actions with very mixed motivations. I respectfully don't consider Cindamuse unbiased enough with the self-described history to suggest deletion of the article due to conflict of interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHalko (talk • contribs) 16:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What an absolutely blatant misinterpretation of my comments above. Accusing another editor of having a conflict of interest in order to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited on Wikipedia. In full disclosure, I offered a bit of my background, openly admitting that my knowledge in software development is nil to peripheral. As I clearly stated, I have no background in computer/software technology. I had never heard of OpenIndiana prior to participating in the Recent Changes Patrol. My peripheral involvement in Sun and Oracle was over 15 years ago. My involvement with my friends that work for those companies is strictly personal. While some work in computer/software technology, I am not familiar with their current projects or whether they are involved in the development of either OpenSolaris or OpenIndiana. I have not inherited any knowledge nor formed an opinion of either OpenIndiana or OpenSolaris through any of my personal or professional affiliations. The information provided above clearly shows that I have no involvement with this project. The original question posed regarded my understanding of the specific issues stated. The closest I have been involved in the computer industry includes a career in human resources with a large Bay area manufacturing company contracted to build hardware for various companies. I also have a background working in state government in employment development. I am very knowledgeable of the faltering tech industry and high unemployment rate in the Bay area. My background is not software technology, but human resources, strategic research and development, and writing and editing. My focus here and interest in OpenIndiana rests solely on the lack of notability of the project, as appropriate for inclusion on Wikipedia. There is no conflict of interest. And OpenIndiana continues to lack notability. Cindamuse (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Cindamuse states "too new to have established notability at this time." I can see no has time based criteria for WP:ORG. The notability criteria that appear applicable given OpenIndiana is a non-commercial organisation would seem a) activity scope and b) information verifiability. RE: The project is international (e.g. contributors to this discussion). RE: Information verifiability. there would seem enough press discourse to cover this matter. I am not part of the team that started OpenIndiana and have no COI apart from seeking to ensure a future for open source Solaris. As for reasons outside the scope of this discussion, open source Solaris is something I believe is of significant notability. Given the level of investment required to produce a new binary release of a major operating system on that basis alone OpenIndiana is notable. Given the number of independent IT experts commenting on this deletion request, I will put out there the project is notable because a community of international IT experts saying it is. This debate is now distracting. The matter for request for deletion should be closed. Haynesp (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)— Haynesp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Ahem. It lacks notability in your opinion. By now I think that's a more accurate way of putting it. -- BenTels (talk) 15:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, my opinion doesn't factor. The subject lacks notability according to Wikipedia, as presented in WP:ORG. Cindamuse (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's what you say. Aside from the fact that applicability of WP:ORG itself is questionable, most people so far don't seem to agree. Which, again, means that it lacks notability according to you. -- BenTels (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just for the information of the contributors here: I've just noticed that the WikiProject Software has rated the OpenIndiana article as Mid-Importance. Don't know if it is relevant in a formal sense, but it seems to me it would be weird to have a finding of no notability in conjunction with that rating. -- BenTels (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wait and see. Notability seems to be established. Further developmenst may or may not make a merge to the OpenSolaris article useful, but right now we don't know. I'm confident this article will not end up as an unmainatained stub. Wefa (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's evidence of notability. ekerazha (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Software-stub template could be added. ekerazha (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good point; I've added it. -- BenTels (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Keep OpenIndiana is a national registered non-profit organization in the United States. the cadence of industry news from commercial publishers about OpenIndiana had been continuous since the initial announcements hit the press.

2010-09-10 http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODU4OA http://www.developer.com/daily_news/article.php/410918/OpenSolaris-Fork-OpenIndiana-to-be-Announced-Next-Tuesday.htm http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2010/09/10/openindiana_launch/

2010-09-11 http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/The-H-Week-OpenIndiana-ZFS-Java-Flash-spies-1076894.html

2010-09-13 http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/41808-opensolaris-fork-to-be-announced

2010-09-15 http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Illumos-Foundation-launches-OpenIndiana-1079376.html http://www.developer.com/daily_news/article.php/411292/OpenIndiana-Launched.htm

2010-09-16 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7861/ http://iplextra.indiatimes.com/article/04ca0aEaR38mC?q=Oracle

Notability seems to be established, all issues regarding notability should be purged from this discussion page so we can get down to whatever issues remain. Merging with OpenSolaris would be like merging RedHat and Linux pages, which was not done on Wikipedia. OpenSolaris is controlled by Oracle, which OpenIndiana is not. Confusion may boil down to OpenSolaris was was an overloaded trademark (a commercially owned thing, source code repository, a community project, a binary distribution, a source of continual patch updates), originally started off as a source code repository, and grew organically into these other areas. OpenSolaris was not necessarily "canceled" as some of the people wishing to "Delete" this article suggested, but community participation was limited by the trademark owner (i.e. the creation of Illumos resulted.) Regular binary distributions are no longer being rolled (i.e. the creation of OpenIndiana resulted.) Patches for regular binary distributions are no longer being rolled (i.e. a suggested future goal of OpenIndiana.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidHalko (talk • contribs) 16:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nomination is a clear violation of WP:COI jonathon (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is no conflict of interest. My comments and response have been misinterpreted. I have provided a response above. Thank you. Cindamuse (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I don't see the claimed violation of WP:COI I do see the article's notability. I'm no user of any Solaris, the closest is my Linux box, yet I know what OpenIndiana is (roughly) and expect to be able to inform myself here on the Wikipedia. The Project seems active enough so I don't see the Article being abandoned anytime soon. --Deelkar (talk) 08:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to make it clear, I'm not disputing jonathon, I just didn't research the issue much.--Deelkar (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination of this article is utterly arbitrary, as can be seen from what articles about other Linux and OpenSolaris distributions exist. First, there are articles about Illumos (which is not a distribution but a fork of the core OpenSolaris code base) as well as about other distributions based on OpenSolaris, namely Nexenta, SchilliX, and BeleniX. A reader wanting to learn about OpenSolaris and its derivatives would be confused as to why there are articles about those distributions but not about OpenIndiana, especially given that Oracle has canceled OpenSolaris as a distribution and OpenIndiana is intended to be its replacement. While OpenIndiana is newer than those other distributions, the fact that (judging by posts on the OpenIndiana-discuss mailing list) its first development release is as stable and polished as the best of the OpenSolaris development releases demonstrates that it is a viable project, so it cannot be treated as "not notable" on account of its newness.

Second, since OpenIndiana is a derivative of what will be Oracle Solaris 11, it is analogous to CentOS, which is a derivative of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. There exists not only an article on CentOS, but also on at least five other derivatives of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, including, ironically, Oracle Enterprise Linux, as one knows from the article Red Hat Enterprise Linux derivatives. If the article on OpenIndiana is deleted, then fairness would require that the article on Oracle Enterprise Linux be deleted as well, although there is no indication that deleting the latter article has even occurred to anyone. -- Herzen (talk) 20:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A review of WP:OSE may provide answers to your questions. Cindamuse (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. To quote from that article:

Wikipedia has, unintentionally, set a precedent for inclusion or exclusion when notability is contested (for example, high schools or geographic features), and in these situations this type of argument may be worth introducing. Herzen (talk) 21:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. High schools and geographic features are specific areas where notability is subjective devoid of guidelines. Therefore, it may be appropriate to introduce precedent based on other articles. Notability of companies (and their projects) are determined according to an established guideline. The above quotation does not apply in this situation. In the AfD, the conversation needs to focus on this specific article. Attempting to assert the legitimacy of one article, based on the legitimacy of another is not helpful in this forum. Cindamuse (talk) 05:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.I hate to be critical of individuals, but I believe that Cindamuse has plainly declared above that he or she has a conflict of interest. Having tried for speedy deletion, and then normal deletion, I think that if (s)he persists, the conflict of interest process should be invoked. This is not just a simple difference of opinion. It is rather obvious that Oracle, and Larry Ellison in particular, might want this article to be suppressed. This has gone on for long enough now. Of course, if Oracle do want this article to be suppressed, that would be one more reason for it being notable.Tiger99 (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have not declared a conflict of interest. I have clearly stated above, that there is no conflict of interest. I have no personal or professional interest in OpenIndiana outside of the fact that the project is currently in development, lacking notability according to WP:ORG. I also remain concerned when Wikipedia is used to promote a commercial venture. Please remember to assume good faith. These personal attacks against my integrity are inappropriate. Furthermore, using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban. Cindamuse (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dear Tiger99 in the spirit of "getting along" may I suggest you retract your COI statement. Dear Cindamuse, your statement above is factually incorrect. OpenIndiana is not a commercial venture - it is a community one. Your lack of notability argument is thus flawed as the criteria stated in WP:ORG for community organisations is different. Furthermore, apart from your subjective arguments, my reading of your argument of lack of independence is also incorrect. I used the word "betrayal" above to help paint the scene that the open source solaris community is recovering from a large companies dealings. This work has been underway for some time with considerable effort on a key technology. As such you are commenting on a highly emotive issue - particularly when some of the commenters here are experts in the field (e.g Webmink), and you have stated that your are not. May I ask that you respect this sensitivity. Haynesp (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)— Haynesp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. I sincerely appreciate the clarity regarding the commercial nature of this project. Honestly, I'm concerned when Wikipedia is used solely to promote anything for any purpose. Criteria within WP:ORG defines an organization as a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This is the appropriate guideline under which OpenIndiana falls. Additional information on independent sources can be found here, and here. I respect the process and individuals participating in this discussion. I don't enjoy the personal attacks, but prefer to reason through the presentation of WP policy and guidelines. This is not the place for emotional interference. I appreciate your attempt to diffuse the situation. Cindamuse (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. OpenIndiana has received a flood of offers for mirrors, which can be seen here [11]. The IRC channel also has over 150 active users. OpenIndiana is now being tracked in distro watch. Despite being a new project, I feel notability has been established. OpenIndiana is very much here for the long haul - and given the sheer lack of alternatives now that Solaris 10 is no longer free to use in production and OpenSolaris no longer exists, unless another fork comes along, OpenIndiana is going to end up being the de-facto replacement for OpenSolaris installs. We've had over 2000 downloads of the ISO and there is a constant stream of people updating their OpenSolaris boxes to OpenIndiana. Deleting this article would be absurd, as it would just get re-created over and over by confused individuals wondering why it's missing.

AlasdairLumsden 02:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)— AlasdairLumsden (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. Based on coverage in other media, and status as a strong contender to being the defacto successor to OpenSolaris notability shouldn't even be a question. What is open to question is why the notability of OpenIndiana is even being questioned in the first place. Ferritecore (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (on my own 'Keep'). It is notable that OpenIndiana coverage is not restricted to personal blogs and open-source fan-boy sites, but extends to serious industry publications as well: ZDNet Australia, InfoWorld, iTWire and numerous others, including forign language publications I can't evaluate. I've ommited publications such as The Register that are particularly open source friendly. Ferritecore (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is unmistakably a notable subject given the media coverage, flood of activity in the community and prominence of the topic and I am in awe of the lack of insight and/or subject bias that would lead to a new article about it being nominated for deletion. Much that is wrong with deletionist attitudes on Wikipedia is summarised in this action. Webmink (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per citations above. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This project has press coverage most Open Source projects could only dream of, and is clearly not vaporware, having already made a release. This is well-established in the references listed above and in the article itself. Tom W.M. (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge to OpenSolaris. I agree about the flood of coverage, all within 4 days of each other and all rehashing the press-release. The OpenSolaris is notable, this is not, or at least not yet. --Bejnar (talk) 04:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's not an option. First of all because OpenSolaris is dead (so if anything OpenSolaris should then be replaced with OpenIndiana, not the other way around). Second because it's factually incorrect, since OpenIndiana is not merely a renaming of OpenSolaris; it is a different project and will be built around a different kernel. Also, your statement that all the press coverage is a mere rehashing of the press release is factually incorrect, as is even explained in the article. -- BenTels (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I quote: the first release is still based around OS/Net. New kernel releases - vaporware. Yes a couple of the blogs/articles that rehashed the press release did so negatively. --Bejnar (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The project roadmap and release schedule for the next two Illumos releases is available. Even if it wasn't, merging into OpenSolaris is still not an option because OpenSolaris is still as dead as King Tut. And even if it wasn't, OpenIndiana is still a fork (or spork, if you insist) by its own declaration so it's still factually incorrect to call it the same thing. -- BenTels (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to make the distinction clear: take Interface21 for example. That company changed its name to SpringSource, making it a continuation of the same thing. Merging two articles on the two and making Interface21 a redirect to SpringSource would be correct. By comparison, Ubuntu was a fork of Debian — that's not a continuation, so calling it the same thing is not correct. That latter case applies here as well. -- BenTels (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: At this time I am strengthening my original vote to speedy keep. In addition to all the arguments previously given (by others and myself), I'm adding WP:SNOW, in that there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that there's going to be a consensus to delete. The term for debate has passed and people are starting to snipe at each other, so there's obviously nothing new to say. It's time to end this. -- BenTels (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: By the way, I'm going to post on the AfD talk page to explicitly ask for an admin to close this one down. It's done and it's going to get nasty if we leave it going. -- BenTels (talk) 13:29, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dear BenTel. The tone of your comment is unacceptable. Please retract and be nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haynesp (talk • contribs) 14:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Errr... I'm not quite sure if you were being ironic here or not. -- BenTels (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:At this point I'm going to guess that you're not being ironic. I'm not trying to attack anybody, please see my comments at the top of the page on that (and sorry if it seems otherwise). -- BenTels (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Notability clearly established per WP:GNG. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Etherkelt[edit]

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

Previously PRODed under WP:CRYSTAL for being an article about something that has not happened yet (a book that is not yet written/published). PROD template was removed by ~~creator~~ IP User 58.164.100.139 whose rationale on the article talk page at Talk:Etherkelt might not assert notability. Kudpung (talk) 06:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability criteria for books. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Not appropriate at this time. Cindamuse (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a place for speculation and article fails notability criteria for books. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a book apparently still in the writing stages, from a non-notable author. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. Edward321 (talk) 14:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 21:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ScreenClue[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Software without claim to notability. The only third-party reference is this review which does not appear to be a reliable source. bonadea contributions talk 06:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. Softsea is a review and download site with no indication of what sort of editiral policy is followed in product selection and reviewing. I don;t really see it as a reliable sources, and in any case, it's the only sourcing that is present, and I could find no other. -- Whpq (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article lacks references to reliable 3rd party sources needed to establish notability. Softsea review does not appear to be a reliable 3rd party source. Dialectric (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-Madonna[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I am nominating this page for deleting as this is a bootleg, lacking notability in any way. A personal search in the google news archives did not return anything significant information regarding this release, except for the fact that it was an unauthorized release. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per obvious notability. I gave 8 sources which cover all of the information in the article, including a dedicated segment from Extra which covers the release with interviews with Bray on this album and his reasons for publishing it, two books written much later with discusses this album non-trivially, as well as several newspaper articles which cover and review the album upon its release. In addition, this is an important piece of legally published work (not a bootleg), the only one covering the early demos of Madonna, which is a particularly historically significant artist.
Authors' have a criterion which states
"The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable. This does not simply mean that the book's author is him/herself notable by Wikipedia's standards; rather, the book's author is of exceptional significance and the author's life and body of work would be a common study subject in literature classes."
Madonna certainly qualifies under that criteria (making the appropriate replacement between literature stuff and music stuff, see Madonna Studies). In addition, the information contained in the Pre-Madonna article is relevant, encyclopedic, sourced, and cannot be merged anywhere. Therefore keep. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 06:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, there are sources, but nothing is actually sourced directly. Is there a reason why there are no in-line citations? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have only so much time in a day, and most of it has to be spent fighting people like Legolas2186. WP:CITATION does not in any way require that things are sourced inline, only things that are likely to be challenged. Legolas has no interest in improving the article, only crippling it to make it look weaker than it is by removing sources, and blanket tagging every sentence because he can't be arsed to read the sources provided. The tags are both disingenuous and pointy. I didn't revert because I'm just too tired to deal with his trolling. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. From a brief look through of the article, it seems that the author had every right to release the album as he was the owner of the material; technically Madonna does not need to authorize the release of someone else's property. Additionally, it is not a bootleg if it was officially released. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 12:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep demo and "unofficial" albums tend not to be notable, but then maybe it shouldn't be surprising that a girl who made a career out of breaking every rule breaks that one too: this surprisingly appears to have significant coverage in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nine ^{[citation needed]} tags throughout, if we remove all the unsourced info only an infobox and a tracklisting left. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 18:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the information is sourced by the references, just not in-line for some reason. I notified the main author above to see if he could address this. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment, I'm struggling to see why this is notable. Other than providing a track listing a lot of the other things are claimed with ^{[citation needed]} tags. There is actually very little useful information. WP:NALBUMS states that where suffificient information for detailed pages does not exist the notability aside the subject should not recieve an independent page. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 21:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly Merge into Madonna. Has some historical significance, is informative and interesting to read, and has sources. The inline citation needed tags appear to have been placed as a reactionary response to an argument, so I'm not swayed by those, as inline citations are not required for uncontroversial stuff anyway, just preferred. All in all it's a decent article though admittedly not that notable if the album is taken on its own. Still, it's distinct and I think Wikipedia would benefit from keeping it.. there's definite reader interest in anything to do with Madonna, and it's these unique articles about rather obscure topics that are just the kind of thing that makes Wikipedia stand out as a great resource. -- œ ^™ 14:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree with each point of OlEnglish's analysis, especially the last. It would certainly be notable if Madonna has made an unnotable album. ('Place your balls on the table' is an interesting metaphor.) Occuli (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Route 666 (music)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Compilation album with no apparent notability. No significant coverage found. Previous AFD from July 2010 closed as No consensus with only two participants. Recently PRODded, but declined due to the previous AFD, so bringing back here for (hopefully) a more thorough discussion. Michig (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As initial AfD nominator; this is non-notable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder. The album did not chart in Australia. Mattg82 (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Sky[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:BIO1E. An IP on the talk page goes into fuller detail about why. NW (Talk) 04:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant failure of BLP1E. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not agree more with both of the above. Shadowjams (talk) 10:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as he is only notable for one event. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A fine example of a good beginning to what might become a decent article.....but just isn't there yet. Back up, start over, try again later. Buddpaul (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely classic BLP1E. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just getting his face in the papers as a protester doesn't make him notable for a Wikipedia article. Fletcher (talk) 22:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The refs are reliable, but they are trivial coverage and even there his girlfriend sometimes gets more coverage. Edward321 (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At last, a BLP1E that really is a BLP1E Vrivers (talk) 03:24, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 15:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn, no delete !votes standing. (non-admin closure) Pgallert (talk) 07:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Nathaniel Henry Peters[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The author is non-notable per WP:AUTHOR. He has not created any major significant works, nor has he created entirely new theories. This article has been nominated for deletion twice before, and the last time ended in no consensus. I'd like to actually reach a decision this time. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 04:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY Keep - Appears to be a notable individual. His papers are preserved, here is a link for the Finding Aid in pdf form. In addition, his 1884 book, The theocratic kingdom of Our Lord Jesus, the Christ, as covenanted in the Old Testament and presented in the New Testament was reprinted in 1972 and again in 1988, which indicates more than passing importance. Peters was a Lutheran minister who appears to have been a pioneer of modern fundamentalism, so historical importance there. You put it all together and it's more than enough reason to keep a little stub hanging around... I did take the liberty of BOLDLY killing two flags pinned to the top... Obviously, it's a stub so it "needs to be expanded" "by an expert in the field" without having to drop three column inches of warning flags on top of a one line entry... Carrite (talk) 05:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has not created entirely new theories? That's funny, considering he's been dead for a hundred years. That said, a hundred years after death, he remains one of the most highly notable religious eschatologists known throughout history. Although, the article should probably be renamed George N. H. Peters, as this was the name he wrote under, and most people with interest wouldn't know to look under his full name. The research and works he completed are classics in the study of premillennialism. Per WP:AUTHOR, the subject of this article meets the first three criteria for inclusion.

Peters is an important figure in the eschatological study of premillennialism. He was not only cited during his lifetime, but continues to be cited over a hundred years after his death.
A hundred years after his death, his works continue to be published. He is known for his extensive research and presentation of the theological theory of premillennialism.
He created a significant and well-known body of work that has been presented in multiple independent periodical articles and reviews for well over a hundred years.
While his work is represented in a permanent collection by the Dallas Theological Seminary Archives, I don't know if this meets the fourth criteria, since the criteria states representation in galleries or museums. As well, there are numerous resources available that establish his notability. These are a few. [12][13][14] Cindamuse (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur on the article name change, that needs to be done as soon as this AfD closes. Carrite (talk) 05:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This may well be a speedy keep situation, here are some sources listed in the finding aid for his papers:

“Rev. George N. H. Peters: Biography.” The Lutheran Observer. October 22, 1909: 1348-1349.

Smith, Wilbur M. “Preface.” In The Theocratic Kingdom, George N. H. Peters, unnumbered pages.Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1957

Stoll, John H. “George N. H. Peters – a biography.” In The Theocratic Kingdom, George N. H. Peters, Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1972.

I've done some rudimentary setting up of the page, the pdf of the finding aid has a nice little bio that can be harvested if anyone has half an hour and needs something to do... Carrite (talk) 05:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment - This stub already passed AfD muster on June 12, 2010 with a KEEP recommendation, then was run up the flagpole again in August with a No Consensus result. It should have been Speedy Kept on the basis of repeated I DON'T LIKE IT challenges wasting our fucking time... Carrite (talk) 06:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Couldn't have said it better myself. Cindamuse (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment - Actually someone just visited my talk page to tell me that I could have. I dunno, honest people may differ. Let's just say the phrase "wasting our fucking time" was carefully chosen to emphasize my feelings on what seems to be the abuse of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and further to implicitly assert that I'm not a fundamentalist christian with an axe to grind here. The bottom line is this : when a decision is rendered at AfD, it may be appealed to Wikipedia:Deletion review. What should not happen is carting the article again and again to AfD, hoping to get a "better" result. That is disruptive behavior. This article passed AfD with a KEEP recommendation way back in mid-June 2010. That's a long, long time ago, I know, but I'm gonna stick my neck way, way out there and say that the notability of a dude that was born 180 years ago hasn't changed a whole hell of a lot in the last three months. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm a preacher's kid, but fully able to separate my personal religious bent from what is and is not appropriate on Wikipedia. And when a spade is a spade... it's just a spade. Maybe we need a new guideline for AfDs. WP:WOFT. Cindamuse (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And another comment - Here's pretty much the definitive defense, reprinted from the June 2010 challenge, which ended with a KEEP result...

Deletion?! - This Wittenburg University Lutheran produced the most exhaustive single work of pre-millennial thought EVER published. It is still being published after over a hundred years.

The three books written by Peters are considered to be the most in depth history on the subject. An entire lifetime was spent creating the 10,000 pages of notes and of course his 3 volumes original published by Funk & Wagnalls.

Short History of the man: http://www.theocratickingdom.com/MrPeters/History.html

Google info on the man: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=George+Nathaniel+Henry+Peters&start=10&sa=N

Google info about his books: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=The+Theocratic+Kingdom&aq=f&aqi=g2&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

BradSp (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to salt AfD challenges? Carrite (talk) 06:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Third nomination since June 2010 ... Is this some kind of joking? Why do you want to delete this article so desperately? It was clearly proved in the previous noms that the information is verifiable and could be useful for our readers. I can't see any benefit in deleting such kind of material. I'd like to know the real reason of this nomination. There's so much work to do here. This is just one of the countless examples of wasting of time here on Wikipedia. All that is masked as a discussion. Ridiculous. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be nice if those who are quick to say how important this individual is when the article is challenged, would actually do something—anything—to actually improve the article itself.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD is not cleanup. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You will note that I was simply making a comment.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, sorry. This is a forum for discussing potential and encyclopedic possibilities of one particular topic. On Wikipedia, there are millions of articles needing attention and improvement. It would be nice to see more editors improving the articles. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to put an end to these multiple challenge shenanigans, the answer is to improve this article from 2 lines to C-level, I do agree with that. And it most certainly can be done. The table is pretty well set now. I'll toss up a RESCUE flag and see if someone gets fired up to spend an hour. But three challenges in four months, when the first came in with a KEEP recommendation, is absolutely unacceptable, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I apologize to everybody if I "wasted your time" and whatnot by nominating this article for the third time. If anybody maybe even attempts to look deeper into the reason I nominated the article, maybe your opinions would not be as harsh. This article was nominated twice before for deletion. During the first nomination, though the discussion was closed as Keep, only three editors out of the five who participated in the discussion actually announced their opinion to keep the article, the creator of the article being included in that number. And from what I gathered from the discussion as a whole, the argument for notability was not very convincing (at least to me), especially since the article's creator was the only one who made any attempt to show that this person was notable. When the article was nominated a second time, it was closed as no consensus since yet again nobody could seem to agree on whether the author was notable or not. Heck, even this nomination has only had five editors comment on it, including myself. So if you really feel I was "wasting our fucking time" and that "this is just one of the countless examples of wasting of time here on Wikipedia", as a few editors put it, then I think you guys really have no idea what the point of AfD discussions are, and also you should really check your attitudes, especially since I obviously do not have a whole lot of experience with the notability of authors (I spend my time editing fiction articles, what can I say?). Furthermore, exactly how much thought and time did you really put into this nomination that it was a complete waste of your time? Anyway, fortunately for good ol' George, people have finally found some evidence of notability in this nomination, and I can successfully say I am convinced enough to withdraw my nomination for the article's deletion. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 02:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. No !votes for deletion outside the nominator. (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave, Shelly, and Chainsaw[edit]

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

Despite the length of this article, there is no content indicating why this subject is notable. This appears to be a local radio show with no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. There are very few actual reliable sources provided, and the few that are provided appear to be insignificant mentions in local media. Searching for the show's title yields results, but most are press releases (especially about the cancellation), blog posts about the show, brief mentions, etc., that otherwise do not meet WP:RS. Most of the content is about "bits" on the radio show, other media the hosts produce, etc., and is unsourceable from secondary sources and/or unencyclopedic. Brought here as a contested WP:PROD; no reason for contesting was provided on the talk page or edit summary. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Longrunning radio show well known in San Diego. Tons of coverage about the show found in Reliable Sources [15], going back to 1992 (did the nominator actually look???). More sources should be added to the article, and a lot of the unsourced trivia could be cut, but the show is clearly notable. --MelanieN (talk) 04:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: did the nominator actually look??? Please, is it too much to ask to assume good faith in this nomination? Yes, I did look at the sources Google News, etc., provided. As indicated in the nomination, all I find are mentions in local media that are trivial coverage about the show's cancellation, its renewal, or other incidental coverage. Nothing that actually establishes notability of the show itself or substantiates any of the content in the article itself... just brief mentions about its demise/return, for the most part, along with other sources in which the show is mentioned. Being "well known in San Diego" does not establish notability. I fail to see how posts in the "Opinion" section of signonsandiego.com or brief mentions in other articles constitute reliable source coverage. Instead of a borderline personal attack, why not point out the reliable sources? If it is "clearly notable," then fix it. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no attack intended. But when I found twelve pages worth of newspaper articles at Google News, I found that hard to reconcile with your description that "most are press releases (especially about the cancellation), blog posts about the show, brief mentions, etc." I'll see what I can do about adding more citations to the article. And I'm tempted to just WP:BOLDly delete all the trivial stuff about their running jokes and such, what do you think? --MelanieN (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see what you were referring to - most of the citations IN THE ARTICLE were from blogs and press releases. I have fixed that. I rewrote the history section and provided half a dozen Reliable Sources. See if that fixes the notability problem. Meanwhile I am still considering stripping out all the unsourced trivia (which would amount to 80-90% of the article). --MelanieN (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely concur about the unsourced trivia... it's based on primary sources (essentially listening and transcribing) and is quite unencyclopedic. If there had been some sort of commentary about the bits, bumper songs, commercial songs, etc., perhaps brief examples would be acceptable, but as it stands, that looks like content that belongs on a fansite rather than here. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm going to go right now and strip it down to a more defensible article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —MelanieN (talk) 04:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I still have a couple of concerns regarding the sourcing of this article:
1) The content provided at the moment can all be sourced to articles from the San Diego Union Tribune. While this is a reliable source, this only counts as one source, per se, per the third bullet of WP:GNG. This is what I was referring to by there being very little out there. After all, some of the sources mention the show (such as [16] and [17]), but don't seem particularly relevant, especially when attempting to establish notability.
2) WP:LOCAL seems to apply as well. As alluded to in the nomination rationale, all of the available sources seem to be from local media (such as the Tribune). It would make sense for local media to write about a local radio show (especially in the local paper's arts/lifestyle section, as is the case with some of the articles), regardless of location, size of market, popularity, etc., but that really does not serve as a good indicator of notability, even with the alleged controversies about this show... perhaps local interest and/or newsworthiness. However, what makes this particular show encyclopedic/notable, as opposed to any other local radio show? That is what is unclear from the sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this show notable is its longevity (more than 20 years) and the large amount of outside coverage it has gotten over the years, as well as its high public profile exemplified by the rallies and public protests that occurred when it was cancelled.
1) As for the Union-Tribune, it is pretty much the ONLY WP:Reliable Source publication in the area that maintains an archive online. The presence of numerous U-T articles by numerous different writers over a span of more than a decade would seem to remove it from the category of "single source". Google News Archive hits were also found for the San Diego Business Journal and the North County Times, but the articles were unavailable for viewing.
2) The "only local significance" point is a valid argument, and is one I myself have sometimes put forward with regard to buildings, people, etc. whose significance was purely local. I have usually lost those arguments if the subject did have significant coverage from reliable sources; even if all the sources were local or regional (the U-T is regional), the consensus has tended to be "keep". Quoting from WP:LOCAL, "Wikipedia:Notability says: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It may be considered that if enough attributable information exists about the subject to write a full and comprehensive article about it, it may make sense for the subject to have its own article." --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW I notice that there are also WP articles about the two movies produced by this group: The Trouble with Money and The J-K Conspiracy. I think these films are not at all notable, despite their listings at IMDB and their notable cameo actors, and I would have no objection if they were prodded or AfD'ed. --MelanieN (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question I'm confused. Something at the article suggests this page was nominated for AfD before, quite recently, with the result "keep". But the nomination is not listed on the Discussion page as usual. The information is only visible when you click "edit this page;" it's part of the AfD information at the top. It says:

The nomination page for this article already existed when this tag was added. If this was because the article had been nominated for deletion before, and you wish to renominate it, please replace "page=Dave, Shelly, and Chainsaw" with "page=Dave, Shelly, and Chainsaw (2nd nomination)" below before proceeding with the nomination. ...

For administrator use only: { { Old AfD multi | page=Dave, Shelly, and Chainsaw | date=15 September 2010 | result=keep } }

--MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- It's probably because I saved the AfD page before I saved the article with the AfD tag... so yes, the nomination page did exist before the article was tagged, for a good 18 seconds. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. So there wasn't actually a previous AfD discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 01:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep Whenever I see an article on a radio show that includes a list of listeners that call into the show or bits that are frequently featured, its hard not see the article in a WP:FANCRUFT light and to doubt the notability of the subject. This article has a number of references to a reliable source (The San Diego Union), but what I notice there is that this seems to be the only reliable source available. Why is that? San Diego is market number 17 with a nearly 2.6 million metro population in the Spring Arbitron book. San Diego print media is dominate by that paper but there are a number of community newspapers in print as well as all major television networks. Why no coverage there, in such a large market? Radio stations or individual shows often have relationships with print newspapers and it makes me wonder if that is why there is coverage in the Union and nowhere else. I'd like to suggest this article be merged into the station's article but since the show has moved from station to station, thats not ideal. Unreferenced and fancrufty sections need to go (movies, frequent callers). I'd also like to see more references here from a wider variety of sources. If that happens then keeping the article would be reasonable.

Regarding the San Diego Union Tribune, did you not see my explanation above? The U-T is the only regional source whose archives are online. It was not the only paper to write about the show, just the only one where you can still view the articles. Google also found articles in the San Diego Business Journal, the North County Times, and the Reader, but they are not available for viewing. As for your wondering about a "relationship", there is no connection between the U-T and Clear Channel or previous station owners. Regarding television, in my experience television news shows almost never comment on radio programming, partly because they are rivals, but mostly because TV news programs are so time-limited. I agree about the "list of listeners"; I was tempted to delete that when I deleted the other trivia (I left it because it had some minimal sourcing), and since you feel the same way I will go clean that list out as well. --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polgas' other guises[edit]

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

In universe fancruft, no secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:36, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 06:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Definitely, given the lack of other sources, which would seem necessary here. Shadowjams (talk) 10:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've somehow managed to avoid using the word "cruft" in all the Transformers discussions, but I can't for whatever this is. This is cruft. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. The "keep" side was rather weak, but sources were indeed provided. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

News.admin.net-abuse.email[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No reliable secondary sources found. Last AFD was laden with WP:ITSNOTABLE !votes and nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was originally going to say to merge to one of our articles on email spam, but looking at the content there's really nothing encyclopedic to merge, the vast bulk of it consists of a list of topics (all of which are obvious aside from the presumably joking inclusion of cats) and a list of "NANAEisms" all of which are either covered elsewhere already or trivial inside jokes. Since this has been around since 2002 and yet still contains not even a scrap of verifiable encyclopedic content, we can only conclude that this is because no such content exists. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per previous AfD. The article should be fixed, not deleted. This newsgroup was quite influential in the late 1990s and early 2000 and should be considered notable because of its history. Some of the inside jargon made it into the mainstream as evidenced by the references in the linked articles. Direct mainstream media references still findable today include: [18] [19] [20] – McDutchie (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep as per previous AfD. This article should be updated, not deleted. This newsgroup is still in action, cutting down on the amount of spam everyone sees. Though so much more is generated every day, it's hard to keep up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.131.194 (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ILIKEIT keep that the closer is free to disregard. Have to show some support for my old haunt. Besides, it's the only article where I had a chance to remove unsourced information on myself per WP:BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cut it out Ritzman! -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per McDutchie. MtD (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Ritzman. -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were once mine (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable short film still in preproduction (http://en-gb.facebook.com/pages/You-were-once-mine/154866337862006) Eeekster (talk) 02:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't qualify for speedy deletion because of the subject unfortunately. No evidence of significance. Jujutacular ^talk 03:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Jujutacular ^talk 03:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I failed to find any sources for this article. The name doesn't help. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per WP:TOOSOON. Userfy if requested so its author can work on it out of mainspace. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Warwick[edit]

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

This is an unreferenced BLP of a non-notable entertainer who now runs a non-notable production company in the UK. The only other information I could find about about him was from the Wikisposure Project, and including that information would be a massive BLP violation. Other than that, he's simply not notable. AniMate 01:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Drmies (talk) 01:27, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable entertainer running a non-notable production company is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Failed to find enough coverage for this person. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article even admits that subject is not notable - "has appeared in... nothing substantial". I couldn't find any more reliable sources. Specs112 t c 04:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; also has very little presence online, including IMdB. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant roles, article itself asserts non-notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cloud learning[edit]

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

Article is stylistically and grammatically challenged--at best it's a dictionary definition, at words it's spam for www.mycloudlearning.com or something like it. It's unverified also. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps redirect to E-learning? --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the reason I suggest redirecting is because this is a fairly relevant term that is generally synonymous with E Learning. Agree that this is "Gushy Spam;" It is almost identical to MyCloud learning, which I tagged as G11. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Reads like gushy spam: a learning theory that uses advanced server technologies to enable flexibility, interactivity and creative academic resources and services; customizable technology that allows for on-demand self-service access to pooled assets and resources through rapid elasticity by way of measured service, value, and accountability; emphasis is upon the rapid distribution of information for the end user rather than the specific needs/goals of each end user. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - completely unsourced. No reliable sources I could find to establish notability. This MAY be a topic that people start talking about at some point, but apparently not yet. In addition, it's likely incorrect, which is of course a good reason to only have articles with good sourcing. Best to redirect to E-learning. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:34, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article was only 32 minutes old when it was nominated for deletion. Considering it for deletion this quickly is simply WP:DEMOLISH. And I'm not just saying this out of principle. Just a quick search through Google find some scholarly sources which describe "Cloud Learning Environments" and "“in the cloud” learning"-- two different unaffiliated peer-reviewed academic sources. This is a very new concept which was introduced at the end of last year based on this article which is a statement of concept issued December 2009. I'm tagging this for rescue. —CodeHydro 22:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind about the second source (it's about anti-virus programs that "learn" virus definitions from the cloud), but the other two sources are definitely related. —CodeHydro 22:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Spammy article fails WP:GNG. The couple of sources in the article prove that the concept exists, but none of the sources provided so far establish the notability of the subject per WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^gab 17:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Has this article been given the chance of a rewrite? The article is badly written but the underlying or proposed technology is very interesting. Many software developers (including Google) think it is an interesting developement and will probably implement derivatives. Cloud learning may be a new and inovative development, if it is'nt it still deserves a well written article in Wikipedia. --JHvW (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, as per others, the sources given prove it exists but nothing more. Codf1977 (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete by JamesBWatson (talk · contribs) at 11:20, 15 September 2010 per G11. (NAC) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MyCloud learning[edit]

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

Prod removed without explanation (IP may be creator, logged out). Article is stylistically and grammatically challenged--at best it's a dictionary definition, at words it's spam for www.mycloudlearning.com or something like it. It's unverified also. Drmies (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete; Tagged as G11. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy delete. Speedily deleted as A7 (non-notable); non-admin closure. みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 01:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Weirdo's Of New Jersey[edit]

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

Non-notable future series on Youtube. Derild 49 21 ☼ 00:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Development Productions[edit]

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

no indication of W:notability. Main contributor has an apparent WP:conflict of interest. No independent WP:reliable sources. Google has very few hits. noq (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could possibly be speedied, since it hasn't been proposed or prodded before; I think it's borderline spam, but I'm not in a rush. Drmies (talk) 01:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Spam is not borderline at all: The Development employs unconventional production techniques and methodologies in constructing content. As a result, the studio's output is marked by its non-tradtional structures. Content is centered around observation of the human condition/experience: uncertainty, drama, humor and the extremity of human emotion. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krysta Rodriguez[edit]

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

This broadway actor seems to fail WP:ENT. She is listed in some RSs as a member of a cast, but not discussed. As cited in the article, she was interviewed with another cast member of a musical in which she was (and may still be) performing in a Time Out Chicago issue here, but that and the cast listings doesn't seem to get her over WP:BIO / WP:GNG. She might be notable for WP purposes someday, but it doesn't look like she is there yet. Novaseminary (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that she is notable, but I am not going to waist a lot of time arguing. If other editors comment they agree with deletion and no one wants to save it, I won't argue with a speedy deletion tag to speed it up. Make sure I am notified, because I want to make sure I save a copy of it for when she's more notable. JDDJS (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aside from her other credits, she originated a principal role in a major Broadway musical, and she has the female lead in a heavily promoted, Will Farrell-produced, Sony film being released next week. There shouldn't be any WP:ENT issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I hadn't seen this. A Google news search of her name and Will Farrell only comes up with 4 blog-like hits and a search for her name and the name of the movie only comes up with two. And most of the coverage does not mention her at all (Entertainment Weekly's blog, a local NBC affiliate, e.g.) According to this she is not a lead character (4 males are), but she is definitely in it (see the last paragraph). I'm not sure her role would qualify as a major role per WP:ENT ("Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions."). Her Adams Family role would be one, but I'm not sure this role in this movie would qualify as major to get her the multiple required. Novaseminary (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With regard to searching for her name with "Will Ferrell", Ferrell is only involved with the film as a producer, so I would not necessarily expect articles about the film to mention both Rodriguez and Ferrell. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That is why I found it odd that I came up with even less hits when searching for her name and the movie title. Novaseminary (talk) 13:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After doing more research into her one movie role, I do not think it meets WP:ENT. She is not listed as one of the five main characters on the film's official site (in the "about" section, under "cast"). Despite Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's claim above, she does not appear to have the "female lead", somebody named Nicole Weaver appears to. Novaseminary (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm giving the subject the benefit of the doubt as to notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per what policy or guideline? I would be willing to bet that she will meet WP:N someday since she will probably get a major role in a film or another major theater role. But WP:CRYSTAL would seem to apply. Why not userfy the article? That way, if she subsequently meets WP:ARTIST, then it can come back. If she never does, then it stays off mainspace. Novaseminary (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BASIC. There are sufficient sources out there to justify this article under the general notability criteria: see Time Out, Broadway.com, The New York Post. Also, you probably mean WP:ENTERTAINER, not WP:ARTIST. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Hale[edit]

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

Fails WP:Author. Might be famous one day; not yet though. Only biographical sources are self-published. Chris (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree; there is already major buzz on this book in publishing circles and on the internet. See, for instance, these pages:

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8109709-the-evolution-of-bruno-littlemore http://www.thebookladysblog.com/2010/05/30/its-not-bestiality-it-is-love/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/hp_blogger_Tonya%20Plank/the-most-anticipated-book_b_655312_55186944.html

It has also been blurbed (advance praise) by at least three major writers: Jonathan Ames, Edward Carey, and Anthony Swofford (http://benjamin-hale.com/BHale/aboutbook.html), and is being published at a major house, Twelve Books, which is an imprint of Hachette. Numkinface (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also added non-self-published references for the bio information. Numkinface (talk) 17:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I quote from Hachette Book Group USA - the reference is to Twelve Books, an imprint of their Grand Central Publishing division: "Publishes one book per month that aspires to be high quality". Despite possibly not being a particularly original plotline (in the summary given, at least - I can recall similar plots from the heyday of SF), Hale has managed to get in print with a major publishing group. Publication (multi-format availability) is not until 2011, but as the book is listed and a release date set, I wouldn't think WP:CRYSTAL would come in. Peridon (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A book with a major publisher meets notability and will certainly gain whatever coverage is missing, although my impession is that enough anticipatory coverage exists already VASterling (talk) 20:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and be open to re-creation if there ends up being significant press coverage of the book once it's out. Roscelese (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article seems to be saying that a book of his will soon be published. Really there is nothing to say in an encyclopedia article until that happens, and even then not right away. If he is claimed to be important as a writer what can be said before people have read his works? Wolfview (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was redirect to Survivor (U.S. TV series). This way the content will be ready when the season premiers. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor 22[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Already tried to merge content into Survivor: Nicaragua as having it's own article is way far off, this article should be deleted now as Survivor 22 is far away. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I "unmerged" it as there was no consensus for the merge and Survivor season specific articles do not normally contain information about future seasons unless a survivor/player/castaway makes a reappearance in another season. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom until maybe in 2011. Once CBS has the go-ahead for Survivor 22, feel free to re-create the article. みんな空の下 (トーク | I wanna chAngE!) 01:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Season 22 HAS been given the go-ahead by CBS and it is currently filming Survivorfan101 (talk) 01:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until more sources come up. Given that Survivor seasons have names, this is also a rare non-musical example of WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or failing that, Merge to Survivor (U.S. TV series). The 22nd season has been ordered and being filmed per included sources. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Survivor (U.S. TV series). There is nothing on this article that can't be included on Survivor (U.S. TV series). --Meaghan [talk] ≈ 20:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this season is real (and according to some spoiler sites, it is a Boston Rob v. Russel Hantz season). If you delete it now, you'll just have to recreate it in two or three months. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes the season is real and yes it is filming, just because of those two things does not mean it should have it's article yet. There is hardly any info reguarding Survivor 22 right now as the focus is on this year's survivor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I added the information of this page on Survivor (U.S. TV series) and this article is not needed anymore until more information (not rumors), is revealed to us, most likely at the end of Survivor: Nicaragua. Mackerni888 (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On a side note, I checked and most Survivor season numbers have a redirect to the Survivor it correlates with. The ones that didn't (Survivor: Borneo, Survivor: Thailand, and surprisingly Survivor: All-Stars) I added redirects to (1, 5, 8). (Survivor 10 has a disambiguation page) I believe that when the name of Survivor 22 comes out officially, the page should be created and this page, Survivor 22, should be a redirect as for all other seasons. Mackerni888 (talk) 09:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:FUTURE, a future event has to be in the planning stages, and this future series is definitely in the planning stages. The examples given at Wp:FUTURE are that " 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not appropriate" but "the 2012 U.S. presidential election and 2020 Summer Olympics" are appropriate. Applying those examples to Survivor, it seems that Survivor 22 is appropriate, but Survivor 40 is not appropriate. However whatever (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Eats Airplane[edit]

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

Fails general requirements, or in the alternative, WP:BAND. Google discloses no multiple, non-trivial, independent, reliable references. Band most certainly exists; all I can see is Facebook/MySpace/YouTube, plus lyrics sites, directories and blogs. Of course, more than happy to be proven wrong. Shirt58 (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I have seen Sky Eats Airplane open for several large bands at big venue shows. I know that their singer left and they have maybe gone down in popularity, but I would not consider them a small band, I think they deserve a wikipedia page. That's just my personal opinion though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joelkornek (talk • contribs) 14:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Band is notable. A few examples: Allmusic Entry, Sputnik Music. They're also charted and made 175 (I think) in Billboard. Referenced from this album article Sky_Eats_Airplane_(album)Keep. --Iron Chef (talk) 03:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. They charted, there's a little bit of coverage in possibly reliable sources, and they have three records with hmmm somewhat notable labels. It's all pretty thin, though, and having a stupid name doesn't help either. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I'm finding plenty of significant coverage in newspapers. The subject meets WP:BAND criterion #1. Examples include:
- Infante, Victor D. (April 22, 2010). "Up in the Sky", Telegram & Gazette, p. 9.
- Osegueda, Mike (June 12, 2009). "Coming in for a landing: Sky Eats Airplane to buzz Fresno for a third time", The Fresno Bee, p. 5.
- McGarrah, Marli Lee (July 16, 2008). "Talking to Sky Eats Airplane", The Buffalo News, p. N9.
  - and so on. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - But...but...don't you agree that the name sucks? Drmies (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's really not that bad. Not compared to some of the other indie band names out there. You've heard of that game where you can pretty much generate everything about an indie band (beside the music) right? :) --Iron Chef (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, I beg to differ. Everything that sounds like "Jimmy Eats World" is pretty dumb in my book. But that link, Iron Chef, that is priceless: I might try and use it in class today. (BTW, y'all go out to the stores and buy "Book. Don't Even Try" by Maray. We're so underground we don't even have a MySpace page, but we have an artsy cover.) Drmies (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Hee hee. My own indie band, The Uncle Devil Show, will be in some trouble because, believe it or not, a band by that name already exists! Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4shared[edit]

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

Not notable and POV issues. d'oh! _talk 14:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ORG, and reads quite like a promotional page. Bigger digger (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very notable website. Has many non-trivial publications about it (as references in the article). Passes both WP:GNG and WP:WEB. --Stickee (talk) 03:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the "references" is very questionable: CrunchBase (#1) and AboutUs.org (#2) is Wiki; PCWorld (#3) has only one paragraph (trivial); Techie Buzz (#4) is a press release from 4shared; comScore (#5) has just a ranking; compete.com (#6 & #8) is questionable website statistics; #7 is the DMCA why?; #8 is a website with nothing about the subject. d'oh! _talk 10:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete per nom, or keep and reinstall advertisement tone banner in the article, since it may looks spammy. The Junk Police (reports|works) 09:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claranet[edit]

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

This is at best a minor web hosting company, fails WP:CORP. With approximately 25K domain accounts, even in their own country of the UK they rank only as the 18th largest web hosting company.[21] Google Book search on them finds only minor references in newsletters or directories.[22] Hardly the significant source or references necessary to be included in Wikipedia.

Page itself is only 4 sentences. About half of the references are from their own site. Other reference are about them acquiring other non-notable companies. Dankim1180 (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Claranet may currently be the 18th largest web hosting company in the UK, but around a decade ago it was known not as a web hosting company but as one of the major Internet service providers (along with the likes of Freeserve and AOL) in the country and a pioneer of "free" Internet connections, and notability does not expire. Yes, that's from my personal knowledge, and no, I haven't yet provided any sources for it, so I haven't made a bolded "keep" recommendation, but I'm suggesting it as an area in which we should look for sources before making any decision about the disposition of the article. I'm surprised that, when the nominator was reading through those 358 Google Books results (and the 107 from Google Scholar and 805 from Google News), he didn't notice any that are more than minor references in newsletters or directories, so, unless someone else gets in first, I suppose I'll have to read through them myself. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. As a start, this document lists Claranet as the 9th largest UK ISP in 1993 with 450,000 subscribers, but several of those higher in the list came into the market much later than Claranet, so I'm sure an equivalent list for a few years earlier would have it higher up. Again, to avoid some of the inevitable ripostes, I am not saying that any particular position in a popularity chart or number of subscribers proves notability, but it is evidence that we should not use the 2010 position of the company in a different market as a reason to assume non-notability. Proof of notability will take more wading through sources than I'm prepared to do today. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also remember them as one of the earliest ISPs in the UK, existing well before the Freeserve days that marked a big expansion in the British online population, but they seem to be oddly missing from the web nowadays (in evidence of notability as well as customers). Agree with Phil that it's difficult to add a keep vote with no positive results. Soupy sautoy (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I looked through the Google results and found nothing notable to add to their Wikipedia page, so that is why I added them to Articles for deletion page. I think we can both agree that the web hosting/domain registration portion and the ISP portion of Claranet are very different businesses. In the document that Phil highlights[23], they list Claranet as the 9th largest out of 10 companies. So they are next to last in regards to significant ISP companies. Even if you found a list from a few years earlier, its possible that they could be even farther down the list since another company with a larger subscription base could have been acquired by someone else.Dankim1180 (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons given by User:Phil Bridger, and please note the BBC news cite I have just added. Just because it may now be unimportant as an ISP, in the 1990s it was well known, at least in Germany when Compuserve was my ISP. Just because not much can be written about it - meaning it may remain a stub - is no reason to delete it. Unless a suitable merge destination exists, it can stay a well-referenced stub. -84user (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Its my understanding that Claranet is now, and has always been, a minor company. The BBC article only tangentially references Claranet, and is really about UK millionaires. And having only 150K accounts in two countries with a population of likely over 100 million really demonstrates their minor status. A company should not be included on Wikipedia just because some people have heard about it, or may have used it in the past. Clarenet's listing needs to be supported by more relative & actual referenced articles. Dankim1180 (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result was no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The distance (boxing)[edit]

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

Dicdef, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Adding a source was easy and it's not a dictionary definition. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename History of the length of boxing matches and expand that aspect. The present title is too dictdef'y. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wow. Colonel, you can't make this work. The phrase is used in a few books on boxing, yes, and that's it--enough to support a Wiktionary entry. The 'reference' you added is only a mention, and I am surprised that you didn't find this one--an entry from a dictionary of slang, if only to emphasize the DICDEF quality of the subject. The rest of the article has, really, nothing to do at all with the ostensible subject. It's a bad dictionary definition, with some unrelated stuff thrown in by way of synthesis. Oh, "the distance" is not a good search term (to be left after renaming), since more often than note that term means something like to the length of a fighter's arm, for instance. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you use the same arguments to delete the articles boxing ring, points decision or knockout? Turning these technical sporting details into articles is just a matter of doing a little hard editing work and I am confident I could improve any or all of them. How does turning these into red links build the encyclopedia and assist our readers? Per our editing policy, why shouldn't we merge this with Boxing#Rules, which already mentions this topic? How is deletion superior to that way forward? As I'm little busy right now, I shall tag the article for rescue and see if we can attract some editors with knowledge of the history of boxing. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - [Comment] - Dicdef?!?! Never heard that one before... This is an original essay, a dictionary definition of a slang term in verbose form... While one could write an encyclopedic article on the evolution of title fight duration over the years, ~~this ain't it and doesn't pretend to try.~~ Carrite (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's WP slang. Someone should write a Wikipedia article on it. Oh wait, see Wikipedia:Dicdef. ;) Drmies (talk) 03:38, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is not just a dictionary definition as the nominator says and includes both history and popular culture. However, at the time of the nomination, these were not made clear in the article as it was all one block of text--that's now been changed as I've broken it into sections. I've also added a bunch of sources. It's hard to find google results for "the distance" because of all the false positives, however, you can find tons of results for "the championship distance", which a specific type of boxing distance pertaining to championships, which has 23,400 results. I will continue to improve the article after this post. —CodeHydro 14:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that the approach of the article be flipped — that a new article be launched called championship distance (boxing) or some such, that this be treated historically, and that the phrase "going the distance" be parenthetically defined and included in that presentation. That makes sense to me as an inclusion-worthy encyclopedia article and it should be easily sourceable to get past any potential notability challenge. The article is currently structured backwards, I think, as a dictionary definition of the slang phrase, followed by a hurried attempt to rationalize this with dribs and drabs of boxing history. Carrite (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]