< 1 September	3 September >

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

The result was delete. I have ignored votes from brandnew users. The issue is the sourcing. The only halfway useful sources are the academic ones written by the authors of the software. This does not cross the notability bar and N/GNG require independant sources. Sorry but this isn't suitable for inclusion just yet Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fastflow (computing)[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable software project. The references listed and that I have found that I have checked do not mention the software, mention it in passing or do not meet the bar for academic sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note AfD notice is not transcluded on the article page. Jclemens (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'tis now, I think. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I simply am mystified by Nuujinn's comment above. First of all, this is a field I understand reasonably well. Does Nuujinn claim to understand this field? Unless he/she does, a statement that software is "apparently non-notable" is vacuous. (This is a serious problem, IMO, in many of the software AfD nominations I have seen.) Also, on the Fastflow website, there are the following references (which should be incorporated into the WP article) that more than meet the notability requirements AFAIK:

Papers

[ART10] Marco Aldinucci, Salvatore Ruggieri, and Massimo Torquati. Porting Decision Tree Algorithms to Multicore using FastFlow, in: Proc. of European Conference in Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases (ECML PKDD), volume 6321 of LNCS, pages 7–23, Barcelona, Spain, Sept. 2010. Springer. (16% acceptance rate)bib

Comment, document exists as a tech report from Aldinucci's uni (local tech reports are not generally reviewed--I do not know how other unis handle these, but where I work anyone can write up a tech report and we'll put it up. It's a quick way of getting the data out into the world, establishing what you have done, without having to wait for acceptance and publication via peer review.). The conference will occur starting september 20th, see the conference web page, but this has apparently not yet been published. If anyone can find a copy of the proceeding, please advise. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, you can find it here. Aldinuc (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, sorry, I forgot to declare that I'm involved in the project. Aldinuc (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[ABL10] Marco Aldinucci, Andrea Bracciali, Pietro Lio'. Formal Synthetic Immunology, Ercim News 82:40–41, July 2010. bib

Comment, link to article, which mentions FastFlow once, in passing. Not significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, on passing? The article describe StochKit-FF, where the FF stands for FastFlow. The article has 3 references, one is to FastFlow website. I'm involved in FastFlow. Aldinuc (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[ABL10] Marco Aldinucci, Andrea Bracciali, Pietro Lio', Anil Sorathiya, and Massimo Torquati. StochKit-FF: Efficient Systems Biology on Multicore Architectures, in: Proc. of the 1st Workshop on High Performance Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (HiBB, in conjunction with Euro-Par 2010), LNCS, Ischia, Italy, Sept. 2010. Springer. To appear. bib

Comment, see [1], proceedings should be out shortly, I suppose, conf ended Sept. 3rd. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[ADK10] Marco Aldinucci, Marco Danelutto, Peter Kilpatrick, Massimiliano Meneghin, and Massimo Torquati. Accelerating sequential programs using FastFlow and self-offloading, Università di Pisa, Dipartimento di Informatica, Italy, number TR-10-03, February 2010. bib

Comment, another tech report, apparently not peer reviewed. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[AMT09] Marco Aldinucci, Massimiliano Meneghin, and Massimo Torquati. Efficient Smith-Waterman on multi-core with FastFlow, in: Proc. of Intl. Euromicro PDP 2010: Parallel Distributed and network-based Processing. IEEE. Feb. 2010.bib

Comment, this one looks good, see this. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[ATM09] Marco Aldinucci, Massimo Torquati, and Massimiliano Meneghin. FastFlow: Efficient Parallel Streaming Applications on Multi-core, Università di Pisa, Dipartimento di Informatica, Italy, number TR-09-12, September 2009. bib

Comment, another local tech report. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[ADM09] Marco Aldinucci, Marco Danelutto, Massimiliano Meneghin, Peter Kilpatrick, and Massimo Torquati. Efficient streaming applications on multi-core with FastFlow: the biosequence alignment test-bed, in: Proc. of Intl. Parallel Computing (PARCO), September 2009. bib

Comment, not sure what to make of this one. I can't find the proceedings on line, and Science Direct has 0 articles by Aldinucci which mention fastflow. I did find an article with the same title here, but it's behind a paywall. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Science direct is an Elsevier press service, whereas the paper is published by IOS press (those two companies are both from the Netherlands and they are in competition). This paper is in a volume that collects the best papers from the conference Parco 2009 (whereas the conference itself has not electronic edition but only a printed book). This paper has been reviewed before the conference and accepted, then selected at the conference, then reviewed again and accepted by other reviewers. IOS press sells it for 20$. I have a copy. I'm involved in fastflow. Regards. Aldinuc (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talks

FastFlow: a pattern-based programming framework for multicores. Dagstuhl seminar 10191, Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany. May 2010. Invited. Slides available on-demand.

Comment, at my uni we get guest lectures 1-2 a week, sometimes from folks who asked to come to take a look at what we're during, sometimes from friends of the person giving the talk. Such do not confer notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FastFlow: why we need yet another programming framework. Guest lecture, Computer science Dept. Queen’s University Belfast, UK. March 2010. Invited. Slides available on-demand.

Comment, at my uni we get guest lectures 1-2 a week, sometimes from folks who asked to come to take a look at what we're during, sometimes from friends of the person giving the talk. Such do not confer notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Efficient Smith-Waterman on multi-core with FastFlow. IEEE PDP 2010: Parallel Distributed and network-based Processing, Pisa, Italy. February 2010.

Efficient streaming applications on multi-core with FastFlow: the biosequence alignment test-bed. ParCo 2009, Lyon, France. September 2009.

Comment, essentially a duplication of the one good (IMO) publication above, since the proceedings are published. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, could you prove, or at least, argument about this? Publishing a non-original material is a serious infringement of copyright; claiming an author has published duplicate material is a serious attack to the good name of the authors. I kindly ask you to either prove it or delete the previous comment. (I am involved in the project). Regards. Aldinuc (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, sure. It appears to me that the papers published or to be published in the conferences listed above have the same titles as these talks. I'm assuming that the papers were written, submitted to the conference, accepted, and both presented and published as part of the proceedings of the conference. If this is correct, I would suggest that the publication of the proceedings and the presentation of the paper at the conference are together a single reference, not two. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, probably a misunderstanding. Of course the talks have same title of the papers. In the FastFlow page they are linked to PDF of the paper and to PDF of the slides. This is the only reason because they appear duplicated. If the suggestion is: put the PDF of slides in the same raw of the paper, well, this is good idea for improving the fastflow website. Thanks. (otherwise I did not really understand ...). I'm involved in the FastFlow project. Regards. Aldinuc (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PDF versions of all the papers and slides are on the Fastflow website. (I haven't bothered to link to them, but I hope that someone will.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardBGolden (talk • contribs) 02:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The above refs can be viewed in-context at the Fastflow web site, here. Besides the above user, is there any group or project of established users we can appeal to here on Wikipedia that has the in-depth knowledge of C++ that would be helpful in determining the notability of what its author is calling "Fastflow"? A few folks who could look more closely at those papers, for example, to see which are directly applicable to the technology, and render an opinion as to whether they constitute a sufficient basis for notability? – OhioStandard (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ A programming framework (not a videogame or a windows utility) less than one year old that stably receives 150+ downloads per month (60 from 1 to 3 sept 2010 since a new revision has been posted) and thousands of contacts can be hardly considered not significant IMO (see sourceforge stats). It has been mentioned in several independent blogs (e.g. Hack the market - lock-free programming), and cited in third-party scientific handbooks (e.g. Advanced Acceleration Technologies for Biological Sequence Analyses, also considering that a scientific works are hardly cited before one year due to revision and publishing time). By the way, the article appears, IMO, not written like an advertisement (as claimed in the box); it requires some updates, as noticed by HowardBGolden. -- Pomello (talk) 10:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking the above !vote as an obvious sock or collaborator of one of the co-creators of this programming framework and the creator of this article about it under his account name Aldinuc (talk · contribs) There's no outing issue here, btw. User Aldinuc has self-identified as one of the creators of the framework. For the quacking I base this action on, take a look at the revision history for the user page belonging to Pomello (talk · contribs), which account was just created today, and whose only edit has been to !vote here. Also, Aldinuc, since your editing experience certainly didn't begin with your creation of your Aldinuc account, will you please disclose the other account name(s) or wiki location(s) where you've edited previously? – OhioStandard (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ohiostandard, I copy-pasted Aldinuc (talk · contribs) user description because I did not know how to make a brand-new one, and I would like to disclose that I'm C++ expert. Template usage in wikipedia is pretty obscure to me, that's it, you spotted me :-) Then I discovered (because of inexperience) that aldinuc page includes personal information (such as skype address and the fact that he/she like guitar and I deleted these information from my user page). I would like to add that I was pretty undecided if copying his/her one or your one, then I discarded your one because it is much more complex and refer to obscure-to-me things such as sandbox, etc. Moreover I'm also Italian and there was a Italy tag there that I can copy. I did not created the account today, I've created my user page today, I've created my account before august for sure, don't remember exactly when, there should be a way to check if it somehow matters. By the way, I've also copied the source from this page, since I did not knew how to indent things, sign a paragraph, make a link and so on. I confess I'm a computer scientist, and this is technically a wiki, and I edit dozen of other wiki pages for other reasons. I hope this not a problem. -- Pomello (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and, yes, he shown me how to edit the user page (because I've asked), and yes we cooperating since I'm using his software, and I think it is good piece of software. And yes, I found this software on the web and asked him to cooperate (starting from July). I did not expected that, due to this, I cannot write my own opinion. And I decided to do it today - as my own initiative - because I've seen the page is under deletion and you asked have opinions, well, IMO the page is worth, and I tried to argument on why I think it is worth. Anyway, I absolutely would not like to violate any rule. I'm really just a newbie in editing wikipedia that would like to give a technical opinion on a software that I know quite well because I'm using it. Best. Pomello (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. HowardBGolden, I've worked in IT at a major uni since the early 1980s, although that's not really relevant here. If you look at the article, please note that most of the references cited came out before the software. Also, I have read some of the papers posted on the project's home page (I assume the homepage is where you got them, since it appears that you cut and pasted the list from there, have you read them?), some cover it in details, some in passing, but all are written by the authors of the software and ~~if you RTFM~~, none of those can be considered reliable since they are PDFs hosted on a self published website. The software may be notable, but we need good references to show that it is. Pomello, I see that you are apparently new around here, glad to have you on board. Download stats thankfully do not make a piece of software notable. See for example this iphone app with more that a 1000 downloads a day (which, ironically is probably notable given the daily mail article). Basically, what we're looking for here is significant coverage in reliable sources. Blogs generally speaking do not count, but Advanced Acceleration Technologies for Biological Sequence Analyses might, do you have the volume/issue/date for the article in question? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn, in the bibliography I pasted above, I didn't read the papers. However, I see that some of them are in reputable journals and computer conferences. Generally, these are subject to peer review. Therefore, I believe that they are considered reliable due to the independent peer review process. (If I'm mistaken about this, please advise.) Please note that LNCS (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), published by Springer, is a prestigious source as well. Each volume is independently edited. It is fairly common for academics to put "pre-prints" of their published articles on their websites so the information can be accessed with paying the high fees charged by some publishers and professional associations.

Of course the software came out after the papers. The software was open-sourced on Sourceforge once it was sufficiently developed. It's clear that the authors of the papers were using earlier versions of the software to advance their research.

The issue of conflict of interest is significant. If one of the authors of the papers wrote part or all of the WP article, this should be disclosed. This may lead to a decision to delete the article (I'm not familiar with the COI rules). However, the notability of the topic has been established based on all the publications in reliable, refereed journals and books. As far as the sock-puppet charge, I have no information about any posters other than myself. I post under my real name, and I don't use any pseudonyms or noms de plume. You can e-mail me using the WP feature. — HowardBGolden (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, you say "It's clear that the authors of the papers were using earlier versions of the software to advance their research" but also "In the bibliography I pasted above, I didn't read the papers"--if you didn't read the articles, how could that be clear? Also, please note, I said "If you look at the article, please note that most of the references cited came out before the software." (emphasis added). Some of the sources referenced in the article are from 2002, 2003, 2004. Regarding the question of COI, the author of the article is one of the designers of the software, see this. And whatever practice is for academics to prepublish, we cannot use pdfs from a self-published web site as sources. Of course, we can use the versions from the journals themselves. ----Nuujinn (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify: I didn't read the papers. I searched for the papers on GScholar and I skimmed some of them. From this I realized that the papers were substantial scholarly papers that incorporated significant material about Fastflow, or were about Fastflow itself. (Have you read/skimmed any of the pasted references? If so, what is your opinion?) I don't have no-charge access at home to the academic journals/books, but I do at work. I will confirm that the PDFs on the website are actually published in the academic journals/books. I can't do this until 7 September 2010 (UTC) when I return to my office. — HowardBGolden (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read some of the references above from the author's web site. I'm unsure about them--on the one hand, assuming they are valid publications, and I'm sure they are, the sources are reliable. On the other hand, it troubles me that they are all by the author of the article and of the software--there lies a clear COI. The relevant portion of policy is, I believe, WP:SPIP, and my reading of that suggests that although the sources are reliable as peer reviewed journals, articles written by an author of the software alone are insufficient to establish notability regardless of where they are published, and what we require are some reliable sources written by "people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) [who] have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." So far, I haven't been able to find such references via google scholar. On a related note, I'll point out that the term "FastFlow" has been used before, such as FastFlow: A Framework for Accurate Characterization of Network Traffic bySR Kundu, B Chakravarty, K Basu, SK Das in 2006, and in reference to lasers and chemical compounds. Makes the searching a bit tougher. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm partly at blame for this being brought here at this time: I should have addressed this sooner. Some history will be useful for other editors to help put this article in its correct context. User Aldinuc (talk · contribs) is one of the co-creators of this programming framework; he created this article and, about nine months ago, co-released the Fastflow programming framework and template library that it documents. He disclosed his identity as user Aldinuc here, btw, something I was informed of after I'd made this 30 May 2010 post to ANI about the Fastflow article and its author. I was too quick by half in marking that ANI post as "resolved"; I did not, for example, realize at the time that the only user to respond to it while the thread was open was not an admin ( although he became one the following month ). When I closed the ANI thread I said I'd take the matter to COIN for further action. I didn't do that, though.

Although I strongly disliked that the framework's author had used Wikipedia to promote his own new creation, and although I believed at the time that what he is calling "Fastflow" is not notable, I nevertheless wanted to get some opinions from C++ programmers on whether this article is useful on Wikipedia. ( Here's one recent attempt, for example. ) Probably the strictly-correct thing to do would have been to AfD right away since my search found, at that time, only a single paper had been presented about it, at an IEEE mini-conference, as I recall. When informed of my ANI post by another user – perhaps I should have informed him myself, even though I referred to him and his software only by pseudonyms at ANI – he responded with this defense of his actions and his article.

I'm still not quite sure what to do with this article. Here's a run-down of my conflicting motives that concern it: (1) I don't like to see useful articles about topics that get little popular-press coverage deleted from Wikipedia. (2) I don't know whether this is a useful article, since this area of programming isn't one I know much about, and since it's so new - version 1.0 was just released this month. (3) I really don't want every computer scientist who creates a new algorithm or implementation to be able to immediately create an article about his work on Wikipedia. (4) I'm personally aware of a researcher, in pharmacology, btw, who has over 15,000 citations to his papers, but doesn't have an article about him or about any of his discoveries here. I raise this fourth item to point up my impression that publishing a couple of papers and giving some talks about one's intellectual creations doesn't necessarily mean they merit an article on Wikipedia. (5) If you look at the contributions history for user Aldinuc (talk · contribs) you'll see that this is a single-purpose-account and may also come to the same conclusion that I alluded to in my ANI post, that this user almost certainly has a significant edit history under some other account. Perhaps that would be on the Italian Wikipedia, I don't know, but no new user creates a first article like this one, via such rapid-fire edits, without prior experience. Anyway, I'm going to think about this topic some more before I !vote, but I did think other editors should have the benefit of this context in coming to their own decisions. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useful article I had the chance to use the article and related links. I used the library for teaching activity at my university and the students found it useful and somehow precise. I have no concerns relative to the way the matter has been presented. And I think the framework discussed is worth being included. As far as the programming perspective is concerned, the C++ implementation of the framework is a quite good piece of work: simple, effective coding from the user perspective, quite efficient in targeting common multicore systems. It compares well with existing, much more famous libraries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjaroslav (talk • contribs) 13:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mjaroslav, I see you just created this account and that the foregoing is your only edit. Would you mind telling us how this matter came to your attention? – OhioStandard (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OhioStandard, as I said, I used information from this article for teaching purposes. Coming back to the page, I read comments and I thought I could express my opinion on the subject even I never contributed to wikipedia before. I registered and wrote my comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.47.42.201 (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. Nuujinn, yes I'm a newbie as wikipedia editor (I hope that I did not violated any rule), I'm not new as computer scientistic. I'm using this software to build a Monte Carlo simulator, it will appear soon on sourceforge. I knew fastflow via wikipedia, and this is the main reason of my support. Reliable sources for PDF can be easily found on the web. Many of them are referred to reviewed conferences; people usually refer to self-published sources (as Technical Reports) to avoid to violate the copyright of the publishers, look at:

LNCS vol 6321 Springer (ECML/PKDD 2010 that is an A-class scientific venue with over 650 submitted papers and 18% acceptance rate this year, look at the conference webpage).

Ercim news (Journal, article are usually invited).

IEEE PDP 2010.

IOS Parallel Computing 2009.

As I said, I'm a newbie here. I might be wrong, but I honestly don't support the idea that blogs and download count don't contribute to notability in general sense (as far they are third-party sources). They might not contribute to scientific notability, but in order to to discuss it I think we should begin a scientific discussion, thus you should raise scientific problems in the approach, e.g. if the approach is not new, not sound, not motivated or whatever else. Scientifically, I think it is a promising approach, and as I said I believe third-party citation will appear, IMO it is matter of time. The same kind of approach has been recently pushed by Intel with TBB even if with a different back-end that use interlocked operations instead of lock-free approach (see HotPar that by the way cites - at citation 1 - a paper from FastFlow authors proposing FastFlow approach, don't know why they still don't call it fastflow). About the handbook I've mentioned, unfortunately I don't have yet the electronic access to it (I see the paper, I've asked my company to get it).

As a final comment I should say that computer science is not pharmacology, each discipline has its own numbers; the most cited paper ever in computer science get about 4800 citations, the second one 2700 (take a look to cireseerx). In computer science a paper reaching 100 as citation count is rare.

I think the article itself may evolve in the sense of describing the approach: high-level programming coupled with lock-free approach, maybe moving the accent from FastFlow itself to the FastFlow approach to parallel computing. I was planning to modify the article (I did not since I see it is under discussion). I hope it may help the discussion. -- Pomello (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I'll check out the refs later. As for the blogs and downloads, it's policy--personally, I'd like to extend the policy for blogs relative to opensource projects since they do not generally participate in the more traditional media. Downloads wouldn't work, as it would be very hard to verify, and doesn't really mean much. Also, the cite count's not critical--my concern about the papers was that all the ones covering the software appear to be from the author of the software--if we have a couple more from other sources, and we have some from the author that are peer-reviewed, we're in good shape. Thanks for the help--for a noob you're off to a fine start. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would ask those involved here to consider a couple of issues. One is the wikipedia policy on conflict of interest. If you are involved in the software project, you should probably not be editing the article, and if you do, you should be very careful to maintain a neutral point of view. The other issue is wikipedia policy on sock puppetry. There is an appearance of socking here, and folks will be looking into this. If you are in violation of these policies, it would be a good idea to admit it now. Aside from the impact engaging in such behavior might have on wikipedia, it could also have unintended effects in the real world as these conversations are available to anyone with an interest. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support Nuujinn's suggestion, and would further suggest that such a disclosure could reasonably be made via e-mail, if that is preferred, to either him or myself. I notice he has the e-mail feature activated for his account, as do I. Nuujinn and I have never interacted before, btw, but from what I've seen here I trust his judgment, and would intend to forward a copy of any e-mail I might receive concerning this matter to him and to EdJohnston (see below), an admin who's familiar with this as well. My purpose in doing so would be to confer as to how we can proceed with appropriate care to minimize any possibility of the kind of unintended consequences Nuujinn refers to above. – OhioStandard (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, email is an excellent idea, and I'm happy to receive same, and will also forward as needed. It would be shame if a momentary lapse in judgment affected a promising career, it is now normal practice to google for information on job applicants. Wikipedia is not interested in punitive actions, but we do need to prevent socking so we can all deal with one another in good faith, and I am sure that any misjudgments admitted to would be quickly forgiven. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - For previous discussions on user talk, see [2] and [3]. This article doesn't pass our notability standards at the present time. I am particularly concerned that User:Aldinuc has been adding links to Fastflow in other articles. The Fastflow system may eventually win the attention of other computer scientists who are not part of the Fastflow research group. Whenever that happens, and the publications appear, this article can be recreated. To predict now that the Fastflow system will gain wide usage and respect within the field is an exercise in speculation, since the third-party reviews and articles do not exist. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note - Ohiostandard has suggested that there may be sockpuppets or meatpuppets participating in this AfD. In particular, he observes that the User:Pomello account was created by User:Aldinuc, as is shown in the logs. I invite any editors who are affiliated with the Fastflow research group to declare that fact in their comments, to avoid problems later on. Editors who pretend to be independent, but are not, may be viewed dimly. The admin who closes the AfD should be prepared to make any necessary allowances. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm one of the co-authors of the FastFlow framework. I would ask to consider just a couple of issues. First, from the scientific viewpoint FastFlow is notable since many peer-reviewed articles have been accepted and published into international journals and conference proceedings (some other are under review and hopefully will appear). For example take a look at the accepted paper list of the PKDD2010 forthcoming conference Accepted papers. This is a fact and not an opinion. Furthermore, on wikipedia there are lots of articles which discuss specific software (for example TBB, aMule, ntop, troff, memcached, postfix, just to mention some I know and use) and many of them don't have any scientific articles published on peer-reviewed journals or conferences. Second, probably due to inexperience in using wikipedia, some errors during the writing of the FastFlow wikipedia article have been committed, but I think such errors can be fixed with your comments and suggestions. All in all, I think it is worth to have the FastFlow article on wikipedia. massimot (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you're entitled to your opinion. But we have policies that guide our decisions. I see that this is your first edit, so I'm assuming you may not be familiar with them. The primary problem thus far as I see it with the question of notability, as WP defines it, is that all of the articles I've been able to find are authored by an author of the software. That's a conflict of interest, and my opinion is that we must have reliable sources from disinterested parties to establish notability. If you can provide references to some, that would be most excellent. Also, please note that we are concerned here only with FastFlow, not with other articles which may also fail inclusion criteria--other stuff exists, but we're not dealing with that at the moment. Finally, if someone suggested you join the discussion here, that might be consider a violation of the no canvassing policy. People with a potential conflict of interest should be cautious in their comments and edits, as it can be difficult for such to maintain a neutral point of view. I hope all of that is clear, please feel free to post questions here or on my talk page if something is not. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nuujinn, you're entitled to your opinion as well. As I read the conflict of interest and notability guidelines, they don't interact in the way you describe. A developer of an idea can write an article that is published in a peer-reviewed (reliable) publication. That doesn't conflict with the conflict of interest guidelines (as I read them). It isn't necessary to have the article written by an independent party if it is peer-reviewed. (If you wish, I'll walk you through the various WP policies and guidelines that I believe support my position.) As I said, when a WP article is written or edited by someone with a conflict of interest, a higher standard is necessary to assure WP:NPOV, but WP:COI doesn't prohibit such articles absolutely. — HowardBGolden (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. As I said, I am uncomfortable with using only sources written by the author of the software, since I do not believe they establish general notability, but by no mean certain. What is quite surprising to me is that we don't yet have any sources that are not written by people involved in the project--if the software is truly notable, I would think it easy to find such sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It's not just this article that's under consideration, btw. Aldinuc also inserted information about his software framework into at least a dozen related articles, after he created this one. If this article is deleted, those edits should be reverted as well. – OhioStandard (talk) 10:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HowardBGolden's findings at the top of this discussion. Journal articles and other scientific publications are reliable sources, even if they're all by the same people; this isn't an issue of self-published sources or improperly citing oneself. Nyttend (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding that there are no references provided *that actually mention Fastflow* that are not written by members of the Fastflow research group. (The reference list included a couple of articles on the general issues of parallel computing). If projects are allowed to establish notability by simply getting their own publications accepted in journals, then the gate is wide open. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just made a run through the reference listed above, most, IMO, fail the bar of reliable sources as they have not yet appeared in print, or are essentially self-published. My !vote will be delete unless we can find some additional sources written by parties not closely connected to the software project, as I believe WP:SPIP applies. I also encourage other editors to examine the sources carefully, there may be some degree of academic puffery going on here. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, the crux of the issue (IMO) is what it means to have an article published in a refereed academic journal. I believe this establishes a presumption that the article is notable within that field, because that's what the referees do. This is especially true when the journal is well-known and selective. An article published in such a journal has risen above WP:SPIP IMO. You worry that "the gate is wide open" if this is allowed. I view that as a hypothetical that needs evidence. I think it makes sense to allow refereed academic journal articles to establish notability and see what happens. If this leads to bad results, then the criteria would need to be tightened. Let's wait and see. — HowardBGolden (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of completeness take a look to: Current Bioinformatics, 2010, 5, 176-194 Advanced Acceleration Technologies for Biological Sequence Analyses by Xiandong Meng, Yanqing Ji and Hai Jiang that can be found here. FastFlow is reference [61]. I'm involved in fastflow. The electronic version is under copyright not sure it can be freely downloaded, I'll be happy to send a copy to anybody willing to have a look by private mail. Regards. Aldinuc (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I requested a copy of the article from Aldinuc. It contains the following brief statement about Fastflow: "OpenMP has been used to parallelize the Smith-Waterman algorithm. Aldinucci et al. [61] has demonstrated that the OpenMP approach outperforms several parallelization schemes such as Intel Threading Building Blocks (TBB) and Cilk." Reference [61] is "Aldinucci M, Torquati M, Meneghin M. FastFlow: efficient parallel streaming applications on multi-core, 2009; arXiv:0909.1187v1." In my opinion, this demonstrates the notability of Fastflow. It is written by independent researchers in bioinformatics, not by members of the project. — HowardBGolden (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question Does the text of the article mention fastflow directly? I believe that would count as passing mention of OpenMP, but if the text of the article does not even mention fastflow directly, I fail to see how that could be considered even a passing mention, much less significant coverage, of fastflow. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response The text of the article refers to the reference (which is about Fastflow) demonstrating using OpenMP (and, by implication, Fastflow) to outperform some other parallelization techniques. I think this is a direct reference. It also makes clear that the independent authors recognize the notability of Fastflow. (I think we are quibbling at this point. The article is about advanced techniques to do sequence analysis. The discussion of Fastflow is not a passing mention, since it is one of the advanced techniques. This isn't like a mention of a rock band in a biography of a famous politician (IMO), which would be a passing mention). — HowardBGolden (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, respectfully, I disagree. Passing mention means that a reference merely mentions a topic, but does not provide significant coverage, and I don't think we even have passing mention here. The Advanced Acceleration Technologies for Biological Sequence Analyses article does not directly address fastflow at all, but rather uses an article by Aldinucci covering fastflow to support the statement that OpenMP can be used to parallelize a particular algorithm in a manner that is more efficient than other approaches. To connect the mention of OpenMP in source A (Advanced Acceleration Technologies for Biological Sequence Analyses) to coverage of fastflow in source B (FastFlow: efficient parallel streaming applications on multi-core) may well be crossing the line established by WP:SYNTH--as you note, you're relying on an implication, rather than an explicit connection drawn by the authors of source A. Rather than showing that "independent authors recognize the notability of Fastflow", the article shows that some researchers recognize the notability of OpenMP, which has been around for a while now. But even if drawing the connection between the mention of OpenMP in the one article to fastflow in the other does not violate WP:SYNTH, it is still no more than passing mention--if that's all that's in Advanced Acceleration Technologies for Biological Sequence Analyses, there's no significant coverage of either OpenMP or fastflow there. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, respectfully, the discussion here is no longer on notability, but on how a "related work" section in a scientific paper should be written according to some interpretation of wikipedia rules. If a scientist would like to tell "OpenMP is fast" just put there a reference to OpenMP not to fastflow. The cited paper present fastflow not other topics. I'm really curious to know why, according to this vision, these authors mentioned a fastflow paper, since, as you said there plenty of papers discussing openMP and Smith-Waterman algorithm. The fact that the "fastflow" is not explicitly written in the text is not relevant at all. Scientific publishing does not have the same rules as wikipedia. I'm still part of the fastflow team. Aldinuc (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm sorry, but I believe you are incorrect, as the primary issue here is notability as defined by wikipedia policy. I'm curious, too, as to why these authors mentioned a fastflow paper--curiosity not withstanding, the problem is they do not say why, and any interpretation we make as to the reasons why they made the decision they did constitute WP:OR. We are supposed to follow reliable sources, not make assumptions or interpretations. You are, however, correct when you state that "Scientific publishing did [does?] not have the same rules of [as?] wikipedia"--wikipedia has its own set of policies and guidelines, and those are the ones we follow. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, we? Are you meaning that wikipedia pages in general accomplish your interpretation of notability rules? Check the pages of TBB, aMule, ntop, troff, memcached, postfix (to mention only the one mentioned the post above) and prepare to produce a lot AfDs ... Thanks for notifying the typos (fixed). Aldinuc (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, do I mean are we always successful in conforming to our policies? No, because wikipedia is not finished and never will be. Is it relevant that other articles on topics that are not notable exist? No, because other stuff exists. Are we going to have lots of AFDs every day, day in and day out? Yes, I think so. If you think those other articles cover non-notable topics, by all means, bring them to AFD. If you think they are notable and can be fixed, by all means, have a go. If you need help, feel free to ask me on my talk page. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, amazingly enough, the more this discussion go on, the more fastflow references comes out. This project used fastflow as multithreading engine jfListen, and lock-free programming. By the way, both of them appear written by people that are expert on the topic. Regards. Aldinuc (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question, Aldinuc, are you arguing that either of those meets the guidelines set by WP:RS? I do not believe that sourceforge or company blogs are considered a reliable sources. Do you know who the authors are? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answer, I'm just putting here information I'm finding on the web. All of them have been compiled much before this discussion. I (and the fastflow team in general) have no relations with the authors. I do believe that a person who download a software (an advanced software), implement with it a non trivial application (spending days or weeks of their time), then write a report on the web, or create a brand new project using this software is really worth of attention. Much more than any direct reference written in a paper. Why they should not be reliable sources? Is physical print that give you reliability? Thus should we conclude that wikipedia itself is, on the whole, an unreliable source? I'm still part of the fastflow project. Regards. Aldinuc (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources are not considered reliable, see WP:SPS. And yes, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, since it's a wiki, see WP:RSEX. Being in print is not a requirement, but blogs and software project pages are not considered reliable, esp. if the author is unknown. If an author is a known expert in a given field, and has appeared in reliable sources, their blog might be considered a reliable source, but generally speaking, some formal editorial oversight is required. There are some things that I am truly an expert, but my expertise does not make my blog a reliable source. Anyone can get a sourceforge account and say what they like. Yes, doing the kind of work you describe is, I think, valuable and worthy of attention, but the question is worthy of what kind of attention and where. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it has rules governing what belongs here. Please read the relevant policies. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joke, I'm not so expert of wikipedia rules, but I can certainly contribute with rules of scientific reviewing: How NOT to review a paper The tools and techniques of the adversarial reviewer. P.S. In this, I'm not in conflict of interest, despite I'm still part of the fastflow project. Good night. Aldinuc (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, well, it seems that I found another paper mentioning fastflow: Concurrent Evaluation of a Directed Acylic Graph by Rakesh Joshi (paper here take a look at beginning of page 3, there is a direct reference). It appeared at the ParaPlop 2010 conference held in Carefree, Arizona last march 2010. There cannot be any doubt that the mentioned fastflow is this fastflow, as the comment is about a SPSC queue bases lock-free/CAS-free programming environment. I'm really thinking that here the only issue is the time one would dedicate to this kind of searches (search on google: fastflow queue, then go to page 5 of the results, by the way in previous pages you can find several blogs also discussing fastflow). I should add that unfortunately I don't know the author, as he is advocating a nice work, and that I'm still involved in the fastflow project. Best regards. Aldinuc (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is a mention of Fastflow:

The graph pattern resembles a network of pipeline filters, notably the recently available FastFlow framework, which relies on assemblies of SPSC queues, copy semantics and allocates dedicated copy threads (Emitters & Collectors) to realize lock- free/CAS-free operation.

Not clear if this is more than a passing mention, but Rakesh Joshi is actually seeing a resemblance between his technique and Fastflow. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but I do think it is more passing mention than significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fastflow is the only third-party programming framework mentioned in the paper. Aldinuc (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, can you point to a WP policy that suggests that being the only third-party programming framework mentioned in a paper confers notability? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the Rakesh Joshi's paper presents a programming technique in detail. Toward the end of the paper, author recognizes that a similar technique has been already used in the fastflow framework. Of course the argument applies backward, as the description of the technique provided by the paper indirectly explains some of the techniques adopted in fastflow. By the way the structure of the paper the author chose is smart as enabled him to make the analogies in extreme synthesis and elegance (as I said, interesting paper). FastFlow is indeed significantly covered by this paper (I were editing FastFlow page, and I no longer do it, I'll certainly use this material). I hope nobody here is going to measure significance of a sentence by its length. With respect the last sentence (and only with respect to this), it might be useful to remember that Salvatore_Quasimodo, Nobel price 1959, got the the price thanks of a composition of 15 words (70 characters). I'm also genuinely curious to know EdJohnston 's opinion after this discussion as he/she expressed their vote before all this long discussion (also via e-mail, if he/she would not like to make it public). Best regards. Aldinuc (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I've taken my fourth jaunt through google scholar and news, my local uni library, and I'm just not seeing anything that I believe meets the bar for general notability--all of the sources that meet the criterion of significant coverage are authored by a major contributor to the both the article here and the software itself, and my reading of WP:SPIP leads me to the conclusion that such sources should not be considered reliable. Many arguments have been presented for a keep, but thus far, few have a grounding in WP policy. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I reiterate my position that publication in a scholarly journal (which subjects the article to peer review) is sufficient to create notability. I will quote from Uncle G: "The places for publishing new theories and new discoveries are the appropriate scholarly journals. For new discoveries and theories, it is those journals that perform the process of fact checking, peer review, and publication, and from those journals that new things are accepted into the general corpus of human knowledge." [4] The point is that Fastflow has been published (multiple times). The scholarly journals and conferences have done their job. It is time to accept Fastflow into the general corpus of human knowledge. Every new idea has an originator. Wikipedia doesn't accept the originator's word for the notability, but Wikipedia should accept the judgment of scholars in the field that the subject is worthy of publication. WP:SPIP doesn't apply in this situation (IMO). — HowardBGolden (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, first of all, fastflow is a software library, and really neither a theory nor a new discovery, it is rather more an invention. Uncle G is a very good editor, but I think you're quoting an essay, yes, rather than a policy or guideline. Also, in that same essay, Uncle G states "Evidence that something has been acknowledged by people other than the subject's own proponents/creators/authors/inventors, and thus become a part of the corpus of human knowledge, is that sources from those other people also exist. Evidence that a source is correct is that other people have performed research in the same area, and published material that concurs." Now, please forgive me for being a bit long winded here, but while the sources we're looking at are academic and reviewed, the article is about a software product, not a theory or discovery--a framework used to process data. If you look at the sources that are not authored by the creators of the software packages, you'll note that these are about other subjects, not the fastflow software. So we do not have a situation here where independent parties have also found the subject of the article notable enough, at least not yet, to provide significant coverage. And I think that is a key point--in that last quote from Uncle G's essay suggests that independent sources are required, and that's parallel to the intent of WP:SPIP. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm really mystified by this last post; maybe I'm not the only one participant too much involved in this discussion (as I declared many times I'm part of the FastFlow team). FastFlow is not only a software library, at all. The FastFlow library is a software artifact developed to prove that the FastFlow methodology is sound and working. Cannot believe this is not yet clear. The FastFlow methodology brings in the scientific arena *several* new discoveries: one of those is how a multiple-producer-multiple-consumer queues can be implemented without any lock and without any interlocked operation. This has been considered *impossible* for long time now (to mention just one discovery). Maybe in this discussion is really lacking the opinion of an expert of the topic we are discussing. Moreover, even assuming - in very good faith - that people understanding is that FastFlow is just a library, then why looking academic articles as reliable sources? Is notability of software libraries established by academic, third-party articles and not download count, availability, maintenance, vitality, bug fixing readiness, are we reinventing software engineering discipline? I'm really afraid that discussion on notability issue is getting tangled up with the question of socking or other kind violation (that by the way has been separately discussed in proper places). I think any independent experienced editor coming here by change, is likely to get the same doubt. I say this because, IMO, a reasonable outcome of this discussion can be "1) the fastflow page needs several improvements, also finalized to explain the novel methodologies that have been published already in academic peer-reviewed articles, 2) these updates cannot be done by an editor that is in COI, as aldinuc for example, who should abstain to edit in this field" and not certainly that the fastflow topic is not notable. That's my very opinion. Thanks you all, anyway. Regards. Aldinuc (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you have just said above suggests not that the fastflow article exists, but rather that some of the material in this article belongs in a more general one on parallel processing or a related algorithm. Yes, "notability of software libraries [is] established by academic, third-party articles" which provide significant coverage, but in this case, there are not any to be found--only 3rd party passing mention and 1st party sources. If, as you say, there's a major new discovery based in fastflow, one would think someone else out there not associated with the software project would have written about it, but apparently that is not the case, at least not so far, and to be blunt, the lack of significant coverage by independent third parties in reliable sources is pretty much the only issue here. Perhaps that will happen soon, but in the meantime, I think we do not have a notable subject. Also, I don't know why you say "discussion on notability issue is getting tangled up with the question of socking or other kind violation" since we haven't talked about anything but notability for a while now. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all the due respect, you are not introducing any new argument, just continuing to repeat the same argument increasingly loudly (as clearly shown by your usage of bold typeface, such an inelegance) in front of any new evidence that has been produced. As an example, you marked as "in passing mention" the one in link to article, an article that has a primary topic StochKit-FF (i.e. StochKit-FastFlow shortened, as it is perfectly clear reading the paper), and you never stepped back from this position. This suggests that your evaluation of "in passing mention" is, at least, questionable. Again with all the due respect, about the sock issue I mentioned, I just cited Nuujinn's thoughts (you) who is, up to my knowledge, an expert editor (here), and notice that the discussion at this point in time was already well developed (see here). Regards. Aldinuc (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, sorry about the bolding, I started my standard Comment and got distracted. In regard to this article, I see that fastflow was used to build a new faster version of stochkit, but little about fastflow itself, hence my belief that it's passing mention. My main objection to using that as a reliable source, however, is that it is not from a 3rd party, and thus falls afoul of WP:SPIP. Yes, this is very repetitive--I'm trying to discuss these issues relative to WP policies, but not having much success, so I'll go do something else for a while. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:31, 8 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.

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 01:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Cotton[edit]

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

Educator with no evidence of notability. Battleaxe9872 ^Talk 23:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - University department head = notable. This is a poorly written stub, obviously. Carrite (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not according to WP:PROF#C6. The threshold there is that head of a whole university = notable, everything lower needs additional justification. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the sole ref states, she is but a faculty member within The Institute of Arts and Letters, Faculty of Humanities at the university. She does not seem to fulfil any of the criteria within WP:PROF. She does not hold a chair ~~or Prof Emeritus~~, and the closest she comes, as head of a department, still appears to fall some way short of "held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at an academic institution". Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Emeritus is not a high distinction; it basically just means "retired professor". —David Eppstein (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS cites give h index of 9. Probably good for a little cited field so may pass WP:Prof #1. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: I think she meets WP:Prof 5 The person holds or has held a named chair appointment at a major institution of higher education and research. Here http://www.huji.ac.il/dataj/controller/ihoker/MOP-STAFF_LINK?sno=9660&Save_t= it says she is/was

Hannah M. Cotton-Paltiel, Shalom Horowitz Professor of Classics

which seems to be a named chair and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem is a major HE institution. (Msrasnw (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Keep Per Msrasnw and WP:PROF#C5. She may also pass #C8 as editor of a journal, I'm not sure (I tried searching for verification that she was editor-in-chief but came up short, and I don't know how significant the journal is). —David Eppstein (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed). Has at least one book, Rome, the Greek world, and the East, currently in more than 500 major libraries worldwide according to WorldCat. Also, has another book in more than 400.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Endowed chair and lots of publications. Seems like it easily satisfies WP:PROF Vartanza (talk) 07:01, 5 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.

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon Fire[edit]

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

Non-notable band. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. SnottyWong ^spout 23:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND. Unsigned and not even an album yet. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no space for Myspace bands. Does not fulfil any of the criteria in WP:MUSIC Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for bands. The Battle of the Bands is not a major music competition. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unremarkable band, does not meet the requirements for notability in a band. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Armbrust. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - non notable band. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:08, 5 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.

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Thacker[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Murderer/rapist who fails Wikipedia's notability policy for criminals - nothing other than routine coverage. Claritas § 22:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, article fails WP:PERP. Derild 49 21 ☼ 23:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:PERP and also falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Could transwiki to wikinews (if pos) as there doesn't seem to be anything on there. Note to possible keepers please address how the article meets WP:PERP, the previous AfD was simply a pile-on of !votes that were votes and didn't address WP policies and guidelines. It is an interesting piece with some useful info, but it's not for wikipedia. Bigger digger (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh-uh. Transwiki is impossible for three reasons: 1) licence incompatibility 2) this article is written in the wrong style (encyclopaedic versus news report) 3) this "news" is ((Stale)) by five years. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm... well I was thinking that old news was still news - I assumed wikinews would be interested in it. I have looked and stand corrected, thanks! Bigger digger (talk) 18:20, 8 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.

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Born (film)[edit]

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

Born was a planned film that never reached production, and these plans do not have enduring notability, as reflected by the lack of retrospective coverage. Article was proposed for deletion in 2008 for this reason, but it was removed without explanation. Per WP:NFF, with this project never having started filming, it ought to be deleted. On the very unlikely off-chance that the project is somehow resurrected (as many are not) and begins filming, the article can be recreated. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete despite some important names attached, apparently never got off the ground. Too bad too, because based on the description I probably would have liked it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Film never reached production with very little sources. Derild 49 21 ☼ 23:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it is a canceled, and thus fails notability criteria for films. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:08, 3 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.

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

's-Hertogenbosch Avenue 2 railway station[edit]

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

Unsourced stub failing WP:CRYSTAL. —fetch ·comms 22:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't even know when it will be completed; definently fails WP:CRYSTAL. Derild 49 21 ☼ 23:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Little information is known at present about the new station" just about says it all here. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, no sources, not even a known completion date. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable. WP:CRYSTAL applies. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:25, 4 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.

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eugène Cremmer[edit]

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

This page has had the tag "This biography of a living person does not cite any references or sources. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living people that is un-sourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately." applied to it for over a year and as the tag states, must be removed immediately. RedBlue82 ^talk 22:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:ACADEMIC criteria 1 & 6. Can't see any contentious statements, but I added a cite for his position and a ((cn)) tag for his research. Claritas § 22:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lets do the usual and look for author:"Eugène Cremmer" in GS. No cites at all. Cites unclear.
Keep in view of cites found below. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep I don't see any evidence of him meeting #6. "Research Director" at the CNRS is just an academic rank, roughly equivalent to associate/full professor (there are two subgrades: DR2 and DR1, the latter being equivalent to full professor). Cremmer is DRCE: "Directeur de recherche classe exceptionelle". This is a rank above DR1 that is attained by perhaps 5-10% of all CNRS personnel. (Sorry, but I cannot give a link for this, as I got this from the internal CNRS database "LABINTEL"). According to the link given in the article he's emeritus, according to LABINTEL he's still active. According to the link in the article, he was director of a CNRS lab during 4 years. All this is pretty good, but doesn't meet WP:PROF #6. However, he clearly meets #1. The Web of Science lists 57 papers. Top cites are 926, 880, 706, 506, 390. Total cites 7568 (with an impressive mean of >130) and an h-index of 31. --Crusio (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find the same WoS results ... clearly a top-tier physicist and an absolute keep. I've added a reference by Michael Duff from Scientific American that discusses Cremmer's role in supergravity research, but I'm sure there lots more out there that could be tapped. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The article has been sufficiently sourced, and he is notable. First Light (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve - needs to be expanded to explain what his research entails / needs more references. Danski14^(talk) 18:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- seems sufficiently notable and decently sourced for the very limited claims that the article now makes; notability is demonstrated in the (unfortunately) single reliable secondary source in the article, Scientific American article from 1998. N2e (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I added a link to a list of his more than 100 publications in international journals (according to google scholar), and explicitely the missing reference referred to in the text. — MFH:Talk 14:04, 8 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.

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

The result was no consensus. Ignoring the "just unencyclopaedic" and the sockpuppet nominator, nobody is in favour of deletion but it seems nobody can make up their minds on exactly what to do with these articles. I'd suggest that furtherr discussion on merging/redirecting/listifying or anything other than deletion take place on a relevant talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers human characters batch nomination[edit]

I am nominating the following articles on fictional humans within the Transformers franchise for deletion due to lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources to substantiate notability:

I believe that none of these articles satisfy the notability criteria and that the content within them is unverifiable using reliable secondary sources. Claritas § 21:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete, per nominator. This is not encyclopedic. WildHorsesPulled (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, Since they are all related so much, they probably deserve to be merged on a list of characters from the Transformers fiction. Mathewignash (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with merging is that none of the information contained in these article can be verified by reliable secondary sources. Claritas § 22:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have books about anime that would verfy the existence of the anime characters. The characters like Doubleclouder or Go Shooter could easily redirect to a list of characters from the Masterforce anime. The ones from Marvel Comics to the Marvel Comics Transformers page, and Chip Chase, Marissa Fairborns and Lord C. should be on a list of characters from the 1984 Transformers TV series. Mathewignash (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mathewignash. Just because these characters are currently inadequately sourced does not mean that they can never be sourced. Merging to lists is the best option for topics where 1) we generally agree that independent notability is unlikely to be established, but 2) they are elements of a notable fictional franchise, and 3) the content can be verified, even if just by primary sources. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creating such a list would be a violation of Wikipedia's policy on primary sources, which states that it is inappropriate to create an article based only upon primary sources. A list is a type of article. Claritas § 10:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listify with nary any content merged -- current content is in-universe and uncited; clumping it into a merged list just move but doesn't solve the problem. Perhaps just migrate the lead of each article. --EEMIV (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Mathewignash. Edward321 (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/merge as a compromise. Let's see if someone can take several inappropriate (unsourced) articles and somehow turn them into a decent list. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and only keep the more prominent characters as redirects. NotARealWord (talk) 12:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge them somewhere if somewhere appropriate exists if anyone cares enough, do not create an new article to house them. Throwing several bad articles into a heap does not suddenly make a good article. J Milburn (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the G1 character list if the characters are a reoccurring character, otherwise redirect to the episode list entry that the individual character appears in. —Farix (t | c) 21:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability improved - I added a good book citation from a third party publisher about this character. Hope this helps establish notability. Mathewignash (talk) 22:48, 9 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.

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 01:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Miller (South Carolina politician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. Person not notable for anything except running for office. Captain in USMC = nn. If he is elected, he will be notable. Appears to be political WP:SPAM for candidate. (reconsider Afd). Student7 (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: He did not simply "run for office". He was twice-nominated to be the candidate from the Democratic Party for United States House of Representatives. -- Cirt (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:NOTE, has received significant coverage from independent and reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Still continues to get significant coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources. Have done a bit more research, and so far, expanded the article yet a bit more, with over 10 additional sources [5]. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —-- Cirt (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect The first AfD proceeded on the false premise that satisfying GNG is a guarantee of notability. It isn't. It only creates a presumption of notability. We have specific standards for politicians and this subject clearly fails them. The presumption of notability is, in my view, rebutted by the fact that just about all of the coverage emanates from the candidacies and the community's view is that mere candidates are not notable. He's merely a low-mid ranking military officer who happens to have been on a ballot in a seat held by the opposing party. I am fully aware that I'm arguing for the deletion of an article about a person who meets the GNG. That's entirely consistent with the GNG's status as a guideline and the meaning of presumption of notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article satisfies point (3) of WP:POLITICIAN (as also noted from the prior AFD). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Point 3 says (appropriately) "can still be notable", not "are notable" - it's a matter of judgment not a guarantee. No-one is guaranteed notability by the GNG. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed, one can still be notable through GNG. One must not meet all points of all sections of WP:NOTE and all sub-sub-guidelines, in order to have an existing article on Wikipedia. :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No that's just misrepresenting my position by exaggeration. When one guideline says "yes" and the other says "no", it's a matter of balancing the two. The "yes" isn't a guaranteed pass; the "no" isn't a guaranteed fail. Notability isn't a mathematical equation either way.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        That is a fair assessment. Neither one is exclusionary or the be-all-and-end-all. :) -- Cirt (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage. As noted by Cirt the article has expanded with reliable sources since second nomination.--Jmundo (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage. There is absolutely no reason to delete this. General note: If an individual is determined to be notable only for a single event, then the individual's article is redirected to that event's article and the material itself is merged into the election article, including photos, sections, External links and so forth. We Do Not Delete. Flatterworld (talk) 23:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage. He's running against Joe "You Lie!" Wilson, and as a result has received both substantial national media attention and substantial fundraising success. He's also led Wilson in at least some of the polls. This is a nationally significant race. If he loses, we can reconsider his notability then. JTRH (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not disputing your argument - just noting that notability isn't "temporary". So if we make the call that he's notable now, he can't become non-notable later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkativerata (talk • contribs)
Keep. Passes GNG. Moreover, a major party nominee for a major political office is just the sort of person who should have a bio here.--Arxiloxos (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The provision of a neutral venue for biographies of active politicians is one of Wikipedia's great public services. People DO come here looking for this information. This example is particularly well referenced, I add. Carrite (talk) 02:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as article author--thanks for notifying me). There has been substantial coverage of both Miller's first and second campaigns, which is sufficient indication that he is notable. Let me also dispute strongly that this is political spam and request a little assumption of good faith. Miller runs in South Carolina and I live in the midwest--I have no connection to him. Chick Bowen 02:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should have said "original author"—Cirt and Flatterworld have done a lot of great work on this that attests to the depth of coverage. Chick Bowen 03:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not yet. There is general consensus that as election candidates at this level are not notable. He may be notable if and when he gets elected. So far, what we have seen is no more no less the sort of coverage they receive for just standing - general interest in the election campaign. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that candidates for the house are not generally notable; obviously, the "keep" argument here depends on the idea that Miller is atypical. I think that national coverage of his role in the fallout of the Wilson scandal combined with the greatly increased local attention caused by an unusually competitive race in a politically one-sided district separates him from the usual candidates. I also don't think the "crystal ball" clause applies, since the article makes clear that Miller is unlikely to win, and indeed one of the things that has attracted notice about him is the strength of his out-of-district support given the long-shot circumstances. It is possible to garner notability in the course of losing an election. Chick Bowen 20:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to win? He has led in several polls, though I don't know without further research how current they are. JTRH (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major party candidate for national-level office with a good chance of election, plus previous history of the same, with significant press coverage. Ray^Talk 15:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And if he doesn't there's always two years from now, and two years after that... (Editors tried to delete this two years ago for same reason).Student7 (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep-- major party candidate for US Congress?? Of course he's notable. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reading the above, it sounds like this specific race is a distinctly notable event, more than this guy is a notable politician. If this was a first-time run, then I would very strongly be arguing for delete (by way of converting the article to being about the race, with him as a sub-section) - but since it's apparently his second time around, he is perhaps 'notable' for more than a single event, and if so, should get his own article (just). See WP:INDISCRIMINATE under "who's who". ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I really dislike the entire argument that someone is inherently notable or non-notable because they belong to a class or category. Notability should be based on whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Generally, I would expect reliable sources to give a lot of significant coverage to nominees from major political parties, and generally I would expect very little coverage of nominees from minor or fringe parties... but there will always be exceptions (in both directions) to this generalization. So the issue here should not be "Is a nominee from a major party inherently notable?" but should instead be "Has there there been significant coverage in reliable sources of this particular nominee?" Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Wikipedia is not paper, we can afford to keep this, it meets GNG and is well-referenced. It will serve as a valuable reference for those researching political races. And a lot indicates he will continue to be covered by media. Danski14^(talk) 18:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This is not a minor party candidate; this is a serious race drawing secondary coverage. Racepacket (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt and Blueboar. Bearian (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in South Carolina, 2010#District 2. There is some significant newspaper coverage, but virtually all of it is primarily about his opponsent Joe Wilson - with Miller piggybacking onto Wilson's notoriety. Contrary to some statements made here, major party candidates for congress are NOT automatically notable - not if they have never held office or otherwise achieved notability, and not if the only coverage is about the election rather than about them. See WP:POLITICIAN: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".... In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion." See also WP:Common outcomes#People: "Candidates for a national legislature/parliament or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability." It could be argued that Miller has received significant coverage and thus rates a "keep", but he definitely does NOT rate an article simply for being a major party candidate for congress. Such articles get deleted here all the time. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relatively few of us are arguing that candidates are automatically notable; in fact I said above that I don't believe they are. If you read my argument, Cirt's, and others, you will see that we have indeed addressed why Miller is considerably more notable than the average candidate for office. I also would question your reading of the coverage; much of the coverage is about Miller's remarkable fundraising, which is undeniably a fact about him. Yes, that fundraising is assumed to have a relationship to Wilson's actions, but that doesn't make the coverage really about Wilson rather than about Miller; if I write a newspaper story about how pollution is affecting brook trout, it's a story about fish as much as or more than it is about pollution. Chick Bowen 02:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does not fail WP:POLITICIAN because he passes the GNG. Specifically, he has won a Democratic nomination twice, so WP:BLP1E, the philosopical underpinning of the WP:POLITICIAN discounting of winning a single primary, does not apply. 141.156.160.217 (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as here, when we actually look for sources is will invariably be found that a major party nominee for a US senate seat is notable, by the GNG, and confirmed by common sense. The positions are of such enduring political significance, & therefore attract extensive national coverage of both possible senators. (This probably holda for the House of Representatives & state Governors, but the case is really clear for Senators.). DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 9 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.

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

The result was keep. nomination withdrawn and solid keep arguments put forward. This can be snowed as an obvious outcome Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert George Clements[edit]

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

Criminal who fails WP:PERP - nothing other than routine coverage. Claritas § 20:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article should be fleshed out, but scholarly articles such as this BMJ one mention the case (moreover, footnote 10 in the article cites "Gaute JHH, Odell R. The new murderers' who's who."). It therefore has historical/academic importance, i.e. notability. Malick78 (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that such a small amount of coverage does not establish any particular significance. See the examples of notable criminals nbed at WP:PERP. Claritas § 10:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for perpetrators. According to the article, he is only a "alleged perpetrator". Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being alleged doesn't preclude being notable. Google books shows 22 mentions of this guy. This is far from the "small amount of coverage" that Claritas mentions. Bear in mind that some notable things are written about more in print than on the net. Note also that WP:PERP's third point is "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy". Here, the execution of the crime is clearly unusual or notable. Malick78 (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the motivation (money) and the execution (morphine overdose) were not unusual. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was a doctor using his medical knowledge and professional relationships to get away with murder. 22 books writing about it suggests others think that's unusual/noteworthy. Btw, I think morphine as a murder weapon was unusual back then, though it is perhaps less so now. Malick78 (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now fleshed it out a bit more with the use of snippet views from Google books. It seems clear to me that a fuller article is possible if someone with access to the books in question works on it. I think, though, that even at this stage the books cited so far establish that there is a significant amount of information out there on this subject. Malick78 (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for being only "allegedly" a murderer, please note that he killed himself before capture and therefore there was no trial. A second post-mortem did however find that his fourth wife had died from a morphine overdose. Malick78 (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Quite plainly a notable case, it gained international coverage at the time and the enduring coverage makes notability clear. Quit lawyering over WP:PERP. Fences&Windows 01:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nom. - this was laziness on my part. I'd prefer it if people didn't accuse me of lawyering though - assume good faith and that I'm stupid (or simply human). Claritas § 20:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's already one delete comment; it can't be closed right now. —fetch ·comms 03:03, 8 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.

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

The result was redirect to The Saturdays. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Saturdays: 24/7[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/The Saturdays: 24/7

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

No indication this reality series has yet recieved significant coverage in reliable third party sources Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 20:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

support redirect, this isnt notable or remarkable. Just follows the daily lives of the saturdays. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep- The television series is not just a one night special or on a smaller network, to the contrary, it's actually on large network and has multiple parts. The series is significant and relevant as it is being aired at a time when the group is reaching near the top of the charts with both an album and a single and the series documents the times leading up to this. I would support the entire article in it's current format being merged but only after the series has aired in full and if at that time sources are still lacking.--Ckelly987 (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And can you provide significant coverage in reliable third party sources about the show? Until you can, it doesnt matter how many episode there are, it fails WP:N. If in the future this coverage does become available, then the article can be a stand alone.Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 14:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Saturdays as it is a very new show and there is simply not enough information for a standalone article. Article can be recreated if there are more information. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The artical should be kept. I agree with Ckelly987, it's not asif the program is on a small network. I will support a redirect after the whole show is finished airing, and still lacking ref's. But The Saturdays: 24/7 is not the only one, Jedward: Let Loose and Girls Aloud: Off The Record, if it is not noble enough for just following The Saturdays daily lives... How are they? --SitDownOnIt (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, are you seriously trying to compare Girls Aloud: Off The Record with The Saturdaus: 24/7? Off the Record followed Girls Aloud whilst they all embarked on seperate projects. 24/7 mainly consists of just trivial fan-cruft and follows their daily lives as a recording group (artist). Per WP:Other things exist don't use other articles as examples for what should or shouldn't exist unless there's discernable similarity. For what it's worth I've also nominated Jedward: Let Loose for deletion. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL we do not keep an unsupported article on the basis that "third party sources about it may show up sometime in the future." If there are no sources now, there is no article now. If sources show up in the future, then we have a stand alone article. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 16:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect - to the group. Off2riorob (talk) 00:20, 10 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.

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galoot[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article which violates WP:NOTDIC - simply lists meanings of the word. Claritas § 20:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete only dictionary content so far, unlikely to ever have encyclopedic content. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 20:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definition + examples of usage = dicdef. If Wiktionary will accept it, the woodworking usage can be added there. Deor (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition. First Light (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:57, 5 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.

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shaktipat[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Shaktipat

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

shaktipat is a recent creation by the Siddha sect. More to come when I understand the appropriate format to submit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cognominally (talk • contribs)

AFD nomination was malformed; fixed it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as a non-notable neologism. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Keep The info given below establishes notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I changed my opinion from delete to keep but the article needs more references Cognominally (talk) 02:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC) My previous opinion : As I said here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaktipat&diff=382429906&oldid=381511967 a scholarly book shows that the shaktipat is an invention of a guru of dubious stature. It is now a lucrative business http://www.siddhayoga.org/shaktipat-intensive of the siddha foundation. The article mainly talks of different levels of realisation (whatever that means) of a yoga practitioner. The many sources given apparently talk about these realisation levels attained without the so-called shaktipat. So old sources are used to justify a modern business. Cognominally (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to siddha yoga. a couple of neutral sentences should suffice. the term seems to only be used in recent, syncretic, nontraditional "yoga" schools. I dont see any evidence (prove me wrong, someone) that this is a vedic, or other ancient sanskrit concept. The actual phenomenon may in fact exist, and any number of "gurus" have had unusual psychic powers (is that spirituality? is my ability to hypnotize you spiritual?), but all this bullcrap is not encyclopedic. even if it were true, its a purely internal experience that cannot be documented reliably. (part of my argument to remove a lot of the lame attempts on WP to make esoteric doctrine somehow "legit" by writing about it here. hey, you see god, good for you. now back to the laundry).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes article needs improvement, but that's not grounds for deletion. Google search returns about 195,000 hits. Shaktipat also seems not to be solely affiliated with 1 group. At worst, move to Wiktionary or merge to kundalini.TheRingess (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Same thoughts as TheRingess, it is as such a real thing at least as real as Past lives and such. As I have experianced it is a Hindu belief. Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to http://www.omkarsadhanaashram.org/meditation.htm the term is used in the Kulanarva Tantra and described in the Prakirna Upanishad. It's also in no way a single group affiliation - I experienced Shaktipat (gratis) without ever having heard of this sect. If a merge is deemed necessary, Kundalini is the only sensible target article. K2709 (talk) 13:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Here is a non-sanskrit article using and discussing Shaktipat by name dated 1940: [6] (page 3). This predates Muktananda's self-documented receipt of Shaktipat in August 1947, so claims that he invented either the term or the process are demonstrably ill-founded. K2709 (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a very old practice in Kashmir Saivism—1932 in this book.[7] First Light (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A term used in Hinduism not limited to one sect. Lumos3 (talk) 23:39, 6 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.

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

The result was keep. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Dark Kabuto[edit]

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

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)).

This article was previously deleted after a proposed deletion remained uncontested for seven days. It was contested here by Ryulong and therefore reinstated by Explicit. While Explicit was correct to recreate the article since the proposed deletion was contested, the notability of this fictional character remains unestablished. The claims to notability as presented by Ryulong are that the character has been made into two action figures, has made an appearance in a television series outside the Kamen Rider franchise, and is a main character in the Kamen Rider Kabuto series. A fictional character's notability is not demonstrated by being made into action figures, making an out-of-context television appearance, or by being important within a fictional universe. Notability is demonstrated by "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", something that this fictional character does not have. The two sources cited on the article do not constitute significant coverage and the second is a primary source. A search on Google Books and Google News reveals no additional coverage. Neelix (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As I mentioned on Neelix's talk page, Explicit's talk page, and I will repeat here, this fictional character is notable for multiple reasons. First of all, he is a primary character in the Japanese television program Kamen Rider Kabuto. As such, you are not going to find reliable sources regarding the fictional character in Google Books or Google News, as this is a Japanese subject and you are probably searching using the translated English name. In addition to his appearances in 2006's Kamen Rider Kabuto, the character also appeared in the 2009 series Kamen Rider Decade in its 20th and 21st episodes. And as Neelix points out, I mention that the fictional character has been made into two action figures, one part of a limited run of which not every fictional character in the franchise becomes and one of which is a standard release (supplementary link). I can show that this fictional character appears in Google Searches 723,000 times and most are regarding his appearances in the two television series or nonprofessional reviews of the toys he was made into. This article currently does not have references that support the coverage the character received in the Japanese children's media when the television series he appeared in was on the air in 2006 as other articles on characters from the franchise, but I certainly do think that my arguments here confer that the fictional character is notable, despite Neelix's ideas and limited searches into the other language sources.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, this character is discussed in the publication Newtype The Live in its January 2007 issue. I am currently looking for mentions in issues of Televi-Kun, Televi Magazine, and Hyper Hobby.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is also discussed in Details of Heroes EX: Masked Rider System, published by Hyper Hobby magazine.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Major character in a notable TV show. jgp T C 21:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator - A fictional character is not sufficiently notable to justify its own article simply because they are prominent within a fictional universe. Ben Matlock and Robotboy are the title characters in Matlock and Robotboy respectively, but they are not sufficiently notable to justify their own articles. As for the possible Japanese sources Ryulong mentions, most if not all appear to be unreliable; based on the website addresses, the sources appear to be things like YouTube, blogs, and merchandise sites. If there are reliable secondary sources for this character, which it does not appear that there are, they should be added to the article. Otherwise, notability has not been demonstrated. Neelix (talk) 17:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your initial deletion request is already your "!vote" in this discussion. As such, you should not preface your comment with "Delete".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Matlock and Robotboy have not been covered in reliable secondary sources like Dark Kabuto has (Televi-Kun, Televi Magazine, Hyper Hobby, etc.).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The use of "Delete as nominator" to preface the nominator's initial comment is a common and accepted practice. If there are reliable secondary sources for Dark Kabuto, add them to the article; at the moment, the claim that there is significant coverage of the character in reliable secondary sources is not substantiated. Neelix (talk) 00:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've never seen that formatting before.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Ryulong, a major character in Kabuto. It's not like New Kiva. Xtreme2010 ( ~AlienX2009~ ) 14:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ryulong. Edward321 (talk) 22:47, 4 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.

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eiffel Tower in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Minor and trivial references, no criteria for inclusion. Excessive, trivia, listcruft, etc. etc. Last AFD resulted in keep mainly on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "the Eiffel Tower is notable, so every single reference to it must be listed." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO and WP:TRIVIA, with no prejudice against the creation of an encyclopaedic article on the Cultural impact of the Eiffel tower, which is a notable topic. x in popular culture articles are innately unencyclopaedic. Claritas § 21:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:TRIVIA does not seem a valid argument for deletion here. In fact, the section titled "Not all list sections are trivia sections" explicitly states that only lists that are disorganized and "unselective" are trivia. However, information here is organized, both by date and by theme. It is also selective in that the Eiffel tower is the narrow theme. Moreover, this does not actually fall under any of the six types listed in WP:IINFO. The headings may seem to describe this article somewhat, but the description that follows those headings does not match the article. —CodeHydro 02:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful information in Eiffel Tower#In popular culture. In there is no useful information the Delete. Derild 49 21 ☼
Weak Keep The article needs references, but the article also confirms that the Eiffel Tower has a significant role in popular culture. Regent of the Seatopians (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per claritas. collection of indiscriminate information not good enough for the Eiffel Tower article, and not good enough for WP in general. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a directory. It is a meaningles list Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 09:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic. If there are notable, covered-by-third-party-reliable-sources for some of these instances, then those could theoretically go into a Cultural Impact article. First Light (talk) 22:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Showing how something notable has been seen throughout notable media over time is quite encyclopedic. Dream Focus 00:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Several world famous landmarks have "in popular culture articles" (Statue of Liberty in popular culture, Golden Gate Bridge in popular culture, Mount Rushmore in popular culture, The London Eye in popular culture, etc.) I don't see why this article is any different. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I share my views with TomCat4680. Eiffel Tower is an important landmark of modern France, and it is very essential to present its varied appearances in popular culture to give one idea about the importance and impact it had had over the years...Cupidcobra1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. A minute or so's searching finds the book Famous works of art in popular culture: a reference guide by Lynda Joy Sperling (Greenwood Press, ISBN 9780313318085, 2003) which has a chapter on the precise topic of the article, and more sources such as this and this. A couple more minutes finds The Eiffel Tower and Other Mythologies by Roland Barthes (University of California Press, ISBN 9780520209824, 1997) a book largely devoted to this topic. Anyone who wants to spend a few more minutes looking for sources will be sure to find rich pickings here and here. I find it very difficult to believe that any editor with the slightest knowledge of Western culture and anything approaching a "clue-bat" wouldn't realise how obviously this is a notable topic. Of course the article is in a pretty sorry state, and I wish that this type of article would be named "in culture", because I don't see why we should exclude unpopular culture, but deletion certainly won't do anything to help build this encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per TomCat4680 --Korruski (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate sourcing available for most of this, and there are no other valid objections. Phil Bridger's work here should serve as an answeer who think that because something is popular culture, nobody will find decent sources for it. Material covering uses in notable works is not indiscriminate. Indiscriminate would be if it covered everything in the world that mentioned it, and thids is or should be limited to material significant in things notable enough for a Wikipedia article. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is nothing inherently wrong with the list, its shortcomings are due to it needing to be improved and edited. Someone another 23:13, 8 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.

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

The result was Withdrawn.[8] Non-admin closure. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)a[reply]

Frank Kschischang[edit]

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

I do not believe that the subject passes WP:PROF. His job and being a fellow do not automatically generate notability. No other evidence is given, and searching Google News and Google Books provides no secondary coverage; Google Scholar gives plenty of publications, but those alone don't make for notability. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from WP:PROF (emphasis in original): "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions ... they are notable. ... 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)" Prof. Kschischang is a Fellow of the IEEE (among other organizations), as is clearly stated in the article. Therefore he satisfies the notability criterion. --S20451 (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But they select up to fifty fellows a year. That's not very selective. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia policy is right there in black and white. Also, there's the EIC fellowship. So I'm not sure how to respond. --S20451 (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete, per nom and per failing PROF. I just dont think there is enough meat on the article, and insufficient sources. The IEEE membership is close to the prof requirement, but I think nom comment (if correct) about 50 fellows per year is pretty convincing. If more sources are added or he becomes the dean i am willing to maybe change vote WildHorsesPulled (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised, since the WP:PROF guidelines specifically state that IEEE Fellow status is sufficient to be notable. I have added some additional details to the article but will add no more, since I am now confused about the guidelines for "notability" and feel like I might be wasting my time. --S20451 (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected: S, I did not read all of your quote from WP:PROF. I certainly didn't think that the IEEE was mentioned in there, and, personally, fifty a year (according to our article) doesn't sound so selective--but you're right, it's there. Nomination withdrawn, with my apologies. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. IEEE Fellow is conclusive. Looks like we all agree on this one – good work, all. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep. Along with the IEEE fellow, the Canada Research Chair is a pass of WP:PROF#C5. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:06, 3 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.

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imagination (film)[edit]

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

Can't see how this film meets wikipedia notability criterea. As I read wp:film, there are two poss. arguments for notability of films, and this film meets none of them. These are: 1 “The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." This is clearly not met - esp. the second part. 2. "The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program." This is also clearly not the case. Thus, the article should be deleted. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to nominator: You've made an error in your nomination, as it is inappropriate to use inapplicable criteria in judging a film. As this is a 2007 film, your using criteria that apply only to films five years or older cannot be used for this article until 2012. Please refer to WP:TOOSOON#Films. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasonable though not overwhelming coverage. WP:NF is intended as a specialized version of WP:N, but that does not mean WP:N is inapplicable. What you quoted are "attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist", because some films, especially older ones, may not reflect their notability so readily in search engine results. I find the presence of reviews at Variety and Journal International to be a good indicator; we just may not be able to find additional references with an easy Google search. Actually, that might not be true... I found this just now with a little searching. It may be that this article will not be large in size, but I think there is sufficient material to sustain a minimal article. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment NF states clearly that "This page gives some rough guidelines intended to be used by Wikipedia editors to decide whether a film should or should not have an article on Wikipedia." Thus NF is the standard to be used and it is these that it fails. I agree that older films may not turn up in search engine hits, but this is a very recent film. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my note above. You've made an error in your incorrect use of inapplicable guidelines. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, NF gives rough guidelines that are intended to be used, which does not mean that "NF is the standard to be used". Bigger digger (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy~~ Strong Keep and strongly suggest the nominator withdraw his nomination. Not only is his nomination flawed (it happens), but even the most cursory of WP:BEFORE would have showed him this film as reviewed in numerous sources, and thus meets WP:NF inspades: Ion Cinema, Frames Per Second Magazine, DVD Verdict, Variety, Short End Magazine, Late Film Magazine, DVD Spin Doctor, Joblo, Hollywood Jesus, Film Intuition, The Independent Critic, Twitch, Mystical Movie Guide, Big Picture Big Sound, Campus Circle, Dream Logic, DVD Talk, AMC Film Critic, Portland Tribune, and many others. There is really no need for this discussion to continue. Seriously. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Easily meets requirements. Dr. Blofeld 21:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to have some coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easy, more than enough coverage for notability standards. Silver seren^C 15:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The criteria cited seem to give short shrift to avant garde or experimental cinema. As much distaste as I have for the filmmaker or his friends having tried to use this and the Eric Leiser article self-promotionally, Imagination has gotten much more coverage than most avant garde or experimental films get. Film Journal International, from the same publisher as The Hollywood Reporter and other periodicals, is a major industry trade magazine, and a cursory Googling reveals reviews from the sources that another editor notes above, plus the AMC cable channel's FilmCritic.com and the granddaddy of fim reportage, Variety. It seems proper that if Variety covers a film, then a comprehensive encyclopedia such as this should also.--Tenebrae (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And worth mentioning, is that the original author has not touched that article, nor any others, since August 5 2007.[9] So perhaps it might be reasonably considered that the contributions of numerous non-conflicted editors over the following 3 years has kinda removed the stigma of the original author's narrow field of interest. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for ((rescue)) by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^prattle 04:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Snotty. I tagged it myself in order to request assistance in its improvement, as actually fixing articles can be of great help to the project. Care to assist beyond the drive-by? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:55, 5 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.

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. WP:SNOW, and based on the creator's other edits, looks to be part of a walled garden of blatantly non-notable self-promotion. Recreating as redirect to PetSmart. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Smart[edit]

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

Book never published, WP:MADEUP. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no sources that suggest this book satisfies WP:NBOOK. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 19:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forget looking for sources, the article makes no credible claim of anything that remotely approaches NBOOK. Jclemens (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the author's article is currently a CSD candidate as A3 and A7. The relevant category has already been deleted as G6. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, no notability whatsoever. WP:SNOW applies. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and after deleting this self-promotion from the history, might as well recreate as a redirect to PetSmart. Google thinks it's a plausible typo, so it's probably a plausible redirect. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good idea. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 19:55, 2 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.

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bart A. Baggett[edit]

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

Not notable, with insufficient coverage in reliable sources. The only reliable source I can find is that he has analyzed handwriting for the New York Daily News in four articles ([10]). However Baggett is not the subject of those articles. There are no reliable sources about Baggett himself that I can find. Evil saltine (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One hell of a lot claimed - only a very short bit quoted in an article - an article about Obama at that - referenced. The first 10 pages of ghits for "Bart A. Baggett" look like a substantial publicity campaign has been going on. And nothing appears to meet our requirements. I've scattered a few more 'citations needed' on the article on some of the more major claims that are currently unsourced. (What am I saying there? Even the minor claims are unsourced...) Peridon (talk) 19:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no verifiable sources about this man that show notability. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and unverified. The clincher: " It is rumored Baggett has been consulted and/or appeared in other TV pilots or programs which have also not found their way on-the-air." The day we start allowing rumors as a Reliable Source is the day Wikipedia is officially dead. --MelanieN (talk) 00:38, 8 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.

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time to Run 2010 Tour[edit]

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

Just another tour by a singer. The article does not satisfy the guidelines for concert tours set down in WP:NM Keresaspa (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In fact, this could be redirected to Marya Roxx Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:59, 5 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.

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European Tour 2009[edit]

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

Just another tour by a singer. The article does not satisfy the guidelines for concert tours set down in WP:NM Keresaspa (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable tour, ambiguous namespace to boot Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:04, 3 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.

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

The result was speedy delete under G12. — ξ ^xplicit 19:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noodle Kidoodle[edit]

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

unsourced and no indication notability. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to be notable enough, with its history and number of locations. I have an issue with the general lack of sources. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few references to the page Noodle Kidoodle. Don't remove it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cody5882300 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - work of a banned sock puppet, User:codyfinke --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 09:00, 4 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.

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

The result was redirect to Phineas and Ferb (season 2)#ep101 (39a-d). Jujutacular ^talk 13:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas and Ferb: Summer Belongs To You![edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails notability criteria for television episodes. Theres too little out-universe information on the article (rantings and airing information), but this alone does not validate a standalone article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Phineas and Ferb episodes as was the case until July. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check at close By the time the AfD is up (and I don't see a need to relist it), are there enough independent RS for individual episode notability? If so, Keep, else Redirect to the previously merged location per TPH. Jclemens (talk) 23:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Phineas and Ferb episodes as per last AfD. As of now, there are only three refs in the article, all to do with ratings figures. All programs get ratings so these don't support the notability requirements. There was another ref in the article, but I removed it as it was a linkvio. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the redirect of this AfD will be redirect, then i think Phineas and Ferb (season 2) would be better to redirect, as it has more information about this episode. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The correct link would actually be Phineas and Ferb (season 2)#ep101 (39a-d). --AussieLegend (talk) 12:21, 5 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.

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Allridge[edit]

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

Criminal who fails WP:PERP - received no more than routine coverage for a murderer. Claritas § 18:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for criminals. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree it fails WP:PERP. Just because his crime was judged bad enough to warrant a death sentence, it is not an automatic ticket to a WP entry Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails notability criteria for criminals. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage demostrated, fails WP:PERP. Hekerui (talk) 12:38, 8 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.

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Christman[edit]

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

Non-notable former Minor League Baseball player who only played in single A for two years in the 1980s. Adam Penale (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - He has been a major league scout. That may be an avenue towards some notability, although WP:ATH doesn't address scouts. He did receive some coverage in this book [11]. Rlendog (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:WPBB/N--a sub-heading of WP:ATH may leave some room for interpretation here, particularly item 5: 'Have served as a Major League Baseball umpire on a regular league staff.' The meaning of 'regular league staff' is rather ambiguous; does this mean any umpiring/front office position with a club in the Major Leagues, or only in the MLB/AL/NL front offices (Clubs excluded)? Scouts generally serve a fairly important front office role. If being a scout for one of the MLB clubs would satisfy this, then WP:ATH is satisfied. Aeternitas827 (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Complete misread, disregard.Aeternitas827 (talk) 09:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a scout isn't a claim to notability, the book Rlendog mentioned only have him in two sentences. Secret ^account 04:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I don't really want to say "Delete" but there is not much there right now. Add some more about his credentials and I say keep. Alex (talk) 04:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't have any independant reliable sources with significant coverage about him. Fails to meet WP:GNG regardless of what WP:NSPORTS covers or doesn't cover. -11:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Very Weak Delete As much as I want this player kept, the subject does not meet WP:NSPORTS or general notability guidelines. It looks like he's been a scout for close to 20 years. I could write a sizeable article on the subject, but it would still fail to be notable enough. Vodello (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per above. Wknight94 ^talk 12:34, 8 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.

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

The result was Keep. Nomination was withdrawn and nobody advocating delete. (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Johnson (musician)[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to sufficiently establish notability. His song "Every Day is a Gunshot" is highlighted in the article but I can find no evidence that it charted anywhere or was nominated for any awards. The article also states that the song was used in the film The Bank Job, but I can find nothing to verify this. The score of the film doesn't contain it. The Wikipedia page for the film lists it as on the soundtrack, (as "Gunshot"), but that is unsourced and I can find no reliable sources to verify it. Even if it is on the soundtrack, without non-trivial coverage I do not believe the page passes WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 17:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 17:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added a source from an encyclopedia on Caribbean music. I'm fairly sure I can find more - will take another look later.--Michig (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: now tidied up, sourced and expanded.--Michig (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination, the expansion and sourcing of the article by Michig satisfy WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 11:27, 4 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.

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

The result was speedy delete. Author requested deletion. Favonian (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four (film)[edit]

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

Due for release in early 2011; very limited information available, and little evidence of notability; fails WP:CRYSTALBALL GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very little information. Sumsum2010 · Talk · Contributions 17:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have only just opened the page and I am new to wikipedia so am, naturally, slow at collating and posting the necessary information about our film (Which is listed on imdb). My apologies if I've done things in the wrong order but If you gave me half a chance before leaping in with your size-nines I could have given all the information required. I now feel there is little point in wasting my time if all my hard work is to be deleted. This is cyber-bullying not editing. Jlang40 - new contributor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlang42 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<ec>Weak Keep - I have to say while the film is coming out in the distantish future, there exist sources for the film. [12] and [13] Derild 49 21 ☼ 18:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Weak Keep and expand as release draws near. Or at the least, userfy to its author for continued work away from mainspace. To respectfully disagree with the nominator, WP:CRYSTAL is being inapproproiately applied, as it specifically allows that " it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment below; I see little to no content in this article which actually meets this exception; the majority of the material added from sources is simply a commentary from the cast and doesn't discuss the prospects for success, as far as I can see. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With the greatest respect, I think I've provided more than enough information and as WP:CRYSTALBALL is quite obviously being incorrectly applied, I'd like to remove the AfD notice at the top of Four (Film)'s page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlang42 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notice cannot be removed until the AfD discussion is closed. WP:CRYSTALBALL is not being "obviously incorrectly applied", it is a matter of interpretation whether or not this article passes it, and I have yet to see references providing significant enough insight into the film to warrant its own article into more information is available. The article currently contains long quotes bordering on copyright violations, providing little more than a commentary, which is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. I see little content in the article meeting the quote given by MichaelQSchmidt, "discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects" GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per others. While the director and the writer are not notable, the familiarity of the cast suggests to me that there will be additional coverage to establish its notability. In the meantime, I would recommend ensuring the article's neutrality due to the conflict of interest present. Editors may want to review John Langridge (director) and Paul Chronnell, for which there is no actual coverage of them, just the film itself. The people's articles, based on self-promotion and not any published personal background, ought to be deleted. If the film is a success and these people are covered more, then their articles can be restored. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it may be notable in the future doesn't mean that it should be kept now. Articles deleted due to WP:BALL can be freely recreated once more information is available and notability is shown to exist. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:27, 3 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.

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Buchtmann[edit]

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

Footballer who has yet to make a professional appearance, thus failing WP:NSPORT, and does not have enough coverage for WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Argyle 4 Life; players strictly on reserves (with no first team appearances) do not generally warrant an article. Azzurre (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom J Mo 101 (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:N. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --Carioca (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 14:30, 8 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.

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (and now even he's not sure) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sale el Sol[edit]

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

I've been off-putting the AfD nomination but the more I think about it and the more I look at the sourcing there just isn't enough information here to justify the creation of the article. It is not notable per WP:NALBUMS because there isn't enough information for a detailed article. There is too much speculation e.g. recorded 2008-2010 and its quickly becoming a forum for speculation/recorded songs. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a cover, release date, confirmed tracks and a single. Just because there isn't that much information confirmed about the making of the album, etc. that isn't a reason for deletion. I also saw that you have removed the background section a few times, which would help building up the article. —ΣПDiПG-STΛЯT (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the background section because it is unsourced and WP:OR. The notability policy for albums also clearly states Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article is about an upcoming album and it should not be deleted as long as we're going to have news to expand the article from now until October 19, the day of the album release. About the current situation I think it's well redacted and it stands on good references. --Quaveren (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Imminent album by notable blockbuster artist - seems clear and present enough not to be in breach of WP:CRYSTAL. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the references are good and no need for deletion.Ashishvats23 Ashishvats23 6:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC +5:30)

Keep pass WP:NALBUM Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 03:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I nominated the article, I now agree..., it was not as hard as I thought it would be, to find reliable sources to expand the article. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 03:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a confirmed album and the following album has a release date, album cover art, confirmed tracks and at least one single. I think it should be kept. Though I find that there is much more info about this album that the article lacks... Jowkoul {talk} 14:43, 5 September 2010

Keep references about the release of this album, are now well confirmed.Too Shakira's official website confirmed the release of this album Sale el Sol. D6h ^!? 16:54, 7 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.

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where You Get Them At?[edit]

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

Delete Prod tag removed. Track from an album that does not even have a final tracklisting released. Not an announced single. No other sources. Fails WP:NSONGS. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One song, that isn't even single, doesn't need its own article if it doesn't include any more info than a basic intro, and few more details, like its lenght. And no sources at all. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~and redirect~~ ~~to The DeAndre Way~~ per WP:NALBUM. There is no sufficient material for a standalone article~~, but it is a valid search term~~. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 19:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no source that the track exists or that it is a track on the album. Red Flag on the Right Side 00:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, fails notability for songs. No indication that it is a track on any album. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:47, 5 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.

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: already had a valid BLPPROD, is now deleted. Fences&Windows 16:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christiano Adamou[edit]

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

Unverifiable BLP: this google search results in almost no hits, and the only hits which do result, are taken from the wikipedia article. Non-notable individual, maybe even a hoax. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without speaking to the possibility of a hoax, this is yet another non-notable footballer. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It seems I messed up this nomination slightly; the BLP PROD on the article is set to expire shortly, and I suggest speedily closing this AfD as delete if the AfD is still open and there are no reliable sources when it expires, per normal BLPPROD process. I would have withdrawn my nomination, but the second delete !vote prevents me from doing that now. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no evidence he ever played for Millwall, all ghits are to this article and to mirrors of it. Happy to have it closed if the nom would prefer. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. delete immediately as a hoax or as an expired prod Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:42, 3 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.

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

The result was withdrawn. [14] Non-admin closure. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror Maze[edit]

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

Non-notable film. The film was never released under the title Mirror Maze, this is only the English translation of its working title. (see the IMDB AKA page) The released title was Proyecto Dos, and there does not seem to be any indication of notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for films. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

- Now in work for improvements. I will report back. As the film never had a release as Mirror Maze, the Find searches far above is absolutely worthless. However, under the alternate titles, the film does seem to have non-English coverage on non-English sites,[15][16] so I will be wroking on searches and translations. I hope to be able to show that WP:UNKNOWNHERE is not the deathknell for this article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and continue improvements. Though (currently) without an article, director Guillermo Fernández Groizard is a notable and quite prolific television director in Spain,[17] and this film represents his feature film debut. And AS that debut, has gained attention and critical response in Spanish press. The article is undergowing a complete transformation and now receiving the attention it merits. So far, what began as this stub with a minor assertion of notability, is now THIS... with proper sourcing (and more coming). More to do certainly, but WP:NF has been met, and notability in Spain is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. And, as the nominator points out the article title is incorrect, I have moved the article and its histories to the proper and searchable title Proyecto Dos. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article now passes notability criteria for films. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 07:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Thanks to MichaelQ for finding information about this film that I was unable to. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:09, 3 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.

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiq Gujar[edit]

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

Unable to find any reliable sources to verify the information in the article. Searched using the spelling of his name in the article and also Gujjar but only found this trivial mention. I haven't been able to figure out what the Urdu spelling of him name would be, but it would probably be helpful. With sources he could pass WP:POLITICIAN but without them he doesn't per WP:BASIC. Speedy deletion was been denied back in 2007. J04n(talk page) 15:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 15:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 15:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like J04n, I can't find any reliable sources to verify the information in the article. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Fails WP:V, unsourced BLP. Ray^Talk 15:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 09:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:03, 7 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.

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Davis[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEW of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. ttonyb (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable individual lacking sources, and does fail WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC, as said above. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, unverified. The article doesn't even say where he is currently teaching, if anywhere. Previous academic titles have been throwaway jobs like "adjunct professor" and "visiting professor". --MelanieN (talk) 00:43, 8 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.

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. Non-admin closure. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Your mother/slap game[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, article is by the inventor of the game. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not for something made up at home one day. Nyttend (talk) 16:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original author claims inventorship. Does not meet wp:GNG. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nyttend. Anyway lacks sources and doesn't seem like a very notable topic. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Should have been speedied as total made up nonsense. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It should not have been speedied, there are no criteria for it. The article makes sense, you know what it is about and can even play it after reading it. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the sort of article to which an admin should apply Ignore all rules and speedy delete. But that's just me. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per all. Yousou (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:30, 2 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.

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

The result was keep. delete votes not strongly grounded in policy Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eidolon (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. NikFreak (leave message) 15:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All music have a bio and review, further news coverage at Blabbermouth.net: e.g. [18], [19], and MTV confirms 2 members of Megadeth in the band, three albums and a compilation released on Metal Blade Records. Passes several criteria of WP:MUSIC.--Michig (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Those are reliable sources. However, whole article was created based on WP:OR source that doesn't even exist now. And all the above sources are not enough to make a full length article. — NikFreak (leave message) 11:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Michig.Green Runner 0 18:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 23:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed with NikFreak. A few sources partially mentioning the band aren't enough. These references refer mostly to Megadeth. There is not enough text about the band itself to make an article. I suggest merging with Megadeth, or just mentioning it in biographies of band members here on Wikipedia. — Gahonzu (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed. There are a lot of non-notable bands linked to famous ones. These sources don't present enough informations about the band itself to make even a start-class article. The whole article was based on WP:OR and these new sources couldn't even cover everything that is written now (and it is currently a stub-class article). I think that a few lines about this band on Megadeth page and perhaps band members articles on Wikipedia would be enough, as this band definitely doesn't pass criteria for having it's own article. — Vater-96 (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable band per WP:MUSIC. has multiple albums on Metal Blade. I have no idea where this talk of OR comes from but that can be fixed by editing. There is enough text at allmusic alone to create an article. There is no need for it to be a full length article, stubs are good. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Alright, then I suggest putting some references into the article and we will see if everything can be covered. — NikFreak (leave message) 11:58, 5 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.

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Glynn Bolitho, MD[edit]

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

Fairly obvious Resume/advertisement. ((Prod blp)) template removed by an administrator (as "inappropriate"). Appears to have published some papers, per primary/self-published source[20] -- no other evidence of notability. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The relevant criterion is WP:PROF, and what is necessary is to show him an authority in his specialty. Since this is usually done by published papers and the citations to them, the bibliographic listing was a sufficient source to defeat WP:BLPPROD. (& I have now added a 3rd party source for this phd thesis) In this case, Scopus shows 8 publications, with the highest citation counts 17, 16, 15, and h = 4. Is this enough to show him notable as a hand surgeon? I doubt it, especially because his "book" seems to have been a review guide for a residency exams & is not in WorldCat; had it been a substantial textbook, it would have been different. DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run-of-the-mill plastic surgeon with minimal publication history, no academic affiliation, and no presence on the web except for his own website and review sites. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mostly discusses him in the context of his profession (not notable per se) rather than any notbale achievements he made within that profession. WoS shows about the same results as scopus for research: 7 papers, h-index 4, <50 total citations, so that won't fly. For your reference: article created by WP:SPA Hammink, so this may just be a vanity or a fan page. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not notable by WP:PROF, not clear what other standard it might meet Vartanza (talk) 03:05, 7 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.

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Walter Parker, Jr.[edit]

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

This article is about an individual with no reliable sources to establish notability, and more importantly satisfy verifiability as this is a biography of a living person. The claim to notability is that Parker is first African-American Head of General Surgery in the US Air Force. However the only references supplied in the article are from a personal interview by Laura Castoro which does not appear to be published anywhere. A search for "Laura Castoro" lead me to this writer whose full name is Laura Parker Castoro which may indicate a conflict of interest, and original research if the article creator is also this writer. Whpq (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Claim to significance is borderline at best. Source is completely unverifiable, and if verified would be a primary source making claims about self. Article author's only other edits are to insert this person's name into United States Air Force. Conflict of interest seems likely. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have to support deletion, as the article doesn't have any reliable sources to prove anything. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, regretfully. I'd really like to have an article here about this guy, because he sounds notable, but it's all unverified. Google search under various permutations of his name finds only Wikipedia-derived material. --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with all the above. Lack of sources is a dealbreaker for BLPs and, like the others above, some first-level web-searching turns up nothing. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 15:07, 3 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.

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. Essentially a speedy G11, and not remotely likely to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Neurosciences Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM)[edit]

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

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)).

bad penny. I had it deleted per WP:CSD#G11 just two days ago, and it's back. The article is unsourced, and highly promotional. I'd be prepared to wager that the reinstated text is an exact copy of the deleted – though I'm not an admin, so I can't prove it. The article is still full of the peacock words and its tone remains unabashed and disgracefully promotional, even compared to the subject's website. All in all, the article is beyond redemption and should be deleted. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too far gone for keeping. University departments aren't normally notable, anyway. Nyttend (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin, and yes it is copied from the deleted version. Note the result of copying the table of contents: the present version of the article starts out with:

1 History 
2 Mission & vision 
3 Research 
4 Press Quotes in the early years of establishment 
5 References 
6 External links 
[edit] History

Easy to see that this is a crudely-done copy and paste. Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious repost of a deleted page, per Nyttend. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Brainsciences (talk · contribs) has clearly indicated that (s)he is in a conflict of interest situation, and his/her intention to use WP to promote this establishment. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and suspected Sockpuppetry... --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 10:37, 3 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.

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fariyas Hotel Mumbai[edit]

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

Contested G11 CSD. Seems to be written by single purpose account. Blatant advertising language. Riddled with external links to the hotel's website some-what disguised as wiki-links. Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and I can't find anything to satisfy WP:GNG. The other hotels in Category:Hotels in Mumbai seem to be notable with maybe the exception of JW Marriott, Mumbai.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (edit conflict) Not notable and most defiantly promotional. Codf1977 (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and seems like pure advertising. Also fails WP:NPOV, as, like said, seems to be made only to promote and advertise. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:12, 3 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.

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

The result was nomination whitdrawn and no !votes for delete. (Non-admin closure) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo Gods[edit]

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

Declined speedy. Band of questionable notability. Although some of the members of the band have notability in their own right this appears to be for other music projects, not this one. The article is unreferenced, and no indication is given as to whether they are even signed as a band with a record label. The band's website has had no "recent news" updated since May 2009. role^player 12:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. -- role^player 18:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BAND Ensemble Criteria #6: "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles."Green Runner 0 17:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Three of the band members are sufficiently notable to have their own Wikipedia articles, a fact that wasn't obvious because their names weren't Wikilinked in the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:20, 2 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.

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. Consensus is clear, and I agree also. One of the few times I concurr that a list limited to subject of notable Wikipedia articles is in fact not suitable,, because it is enormously too broad. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of public domain musical works[edit]

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

I have serious concerns with this claim: "this list [of musical works] is restricted to those which have a Wikipedia article." What about the non-existing articles about important and notable old compositions? I don't think Wikipedia should have an article covering public domain musical works selected by the presence in this project. I don't think Wikipedia should cover this topic at all, as there are thousands of compositions in public domain, and maintaining such a long list would be simply impossible. Projects such as IMSLP serve that purpose far better. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(From my talk page) There shouldn't be any notable musical works which don't have Wikipedia articles and there shouldn't be any non-notable musical works which do have Wikipedia articles. The reason for the restriction is because otherwise it would contain be thousands of compositions, as you said. Just because another website has information on something does not mean Wikipedia should not bother. Our list is more accessible. McLerristarr / Mclay1 11:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why this article should be deleted. It was only created an hour ago. It's clearly nowhere near finished but once it is, it will be very useful. Far more useful than List of public domain tangos and just as useful as List of films in the public domain in the United States. McLerristarr / Mclay1 11:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Of course there are plenty of notable musical works which don't have Wikipedia article, this is not a perfect world. Any list based solely on the presence of the subject on Wikipedia is inappropriate, in my opinion. I have no problem with the List of public domain tangos, but this topic is too broad for a single list. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me an example of a notable musical work that does not have a Wikipedia article? It's highly unlikely, given all the non-notable bollocks that gets deleted from Wikipedia every day, that someone would have overlooked an important musical work. There are articles on every composition by Beethoven, Mozart etc. There are plently of articles on very minor things so it's unlikely someone would have missed out something notable. McLerristarr / Mclay1 11:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you hundreds of examples, Mclay1. Do you really think that this encyclopedia is completed? Uff ... I miss all the beautiful recorder concertos by Vivaldi, ranked among the most important works of the recorder repertoire, but this is unimportant. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "works" is not defined, and i dont think can be defined. If the list is of classical scores, they are all well documented on other lists. Even when limiting it to classical works, the list is too broad, and the nightmare of trying to determine which more recent works have become public domain is daunting. we have List of films in the public domain in the United States and List of public domain tangos which have a smaller scope, and are referenced. List of TV series with episodes in the public domain is an example of a poorly thought out list (as this is also), as it has no references and the target articles may not mention public domain status. It seems the use of such a list has to do with more recent creative works, where the issue of public domain is not always settled obviously. of course, its a trivial act to list all the notable classical pieces more than 100 years old, but why? that would essentially duplicate any lists of non-modern classical works. PS if its saved, the criteria for having a WP article should be stripped from the lead and placed as hidden text. usually, stand alone lists can have redlinks if the link has a reference showing notability, but i doubt we have many not written up yet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Musical works' is used many times on Wikipedia, including in article and category names. It has an obvious meaning. The list has no references because no sooner had I created, it was already nominated for deletion. I had no chance to get any references. The 9 current list items are definitely in the public domain, I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. List of films in the public domain in the United States is exactly the same concept as this list, only for films rather than music. I don't see the difference. Films enter the public domain every year and that list is very far from complete. Old musical works are also far more noteworthy than old films. McLerristarr / Mclay1 13:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above; no way could we ever narrow this enough to a reasonable list. The name is way too broad. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The number of musical works in the public domain is just colossal, for instance, most of the canon of classical music would qualify. Even sticking to well-known works, the list would become so long as not to be useful to anyone. May I courteously suggest to User:Mclay1 that finding just one single composer and making sure his/her works are all documented on WP would be a far more useful task? Opus33 (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in classical music. I just saw an opportunity for a very useful list, such as very similar ones that are already in existence. McLerristarr / Mclay1 13:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see a category for these, but a list has no chance of being comprehensive... and one wonders whether such a trait would even be desirable. Most categories can reasonably have lists attached, but I don't see this as one of those. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments above. --Klein zach 01:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia already has a record of the public domain guidelines for music, I believe; people are hopefully smart enough to figure out for themselves if a piece is public domain. Also, yeah, this would be a ridiculously extensive list. Roscelese (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per much of the above discussion. If maintained, the list would become unmanageably long. I can't see any useful purpose to this list that couldn't be better served by a category. And since different countries have different copyright periods, would you include works that are public domain only in some territories? --Deskford (talk) 10:10, 8 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.

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Itzhak Bentov[edit]

This article contains ridiculous claims "His innovative research and theory on Kundalini is still, more than 30 years after its formulation, widely recognized as the best of its kind - and still at the cutting edge of alternative research of methods for Central Nervous System rehabilitation and of mind-body connections."

Come on. Kundalini as a therapy?

"Active Kundalini comprises homogeneous arrangement of electrical duo-poles in the area of the brain connected to the CNS, making that area a conducting material rather than a semi-conductor." WTF?!? What are semiconductors in the context of the brain? Other material does not make enough sense to allow any serious discussion

"The universe is a hologram. The brain is a hologram interpreting a holographic universe." Yea, right. Whatever that means.

I doubt that any serious and successful scientific work has been done on kundalini that is an esoteric concept. Show me any scientific reference by reputable authors with reproducable procedures. Unsubstanciated superlatives like "widely recognized", "widely accepted" and "cutting edge" for stuff that is mere mumbo jumbo is a disgrace to wikipedia. Cognominally (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean-up - per significant coverage: [21], [22], [23] etc. He's a pseudoscientist, but a notable one. I'll tag the article for rescue, and tag for neutrality issues. Claritas § 18:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Of the refs posted, 2 are passing mentions in copies of basically the same article, 1 is from a firm selling his books. The refs above are not much better, only 1 of the three books mention him more than once, the other 2 mention him in passing (once each, with an additional footnote mention). GregJackP Boomer! 20:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Claritas . Bentov's ideas are far out but he has been influential in some areas of thought. Google Scholar throws up 166 mentions of his work. [24]. Lumos3 (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, he is a pseudoscientist like Claritas said. His ability to attract attention or to make business out of it is irrelevant. Judging by the wikipedia article, his holistic statements are non sensical. Statements to which can be assigned a meaning are clearly invalid scientifically. Thx to Claritas to help me to set up this page. Cognominally (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC) It does not passes WP:BIO criteria that states at the very beginning that there is a need for "secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject." This is hardly the case here. Cognominally (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like it passes WP:BIO, which is biggest consideration here.TheRingess (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems a notable fringer. Keep as per Claritas. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment This needs a few more (and better sources) to establish any notability, none of the coverage appears to be significant a line here a line there.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the first two paragraphs in the Life section get inline citations from reliable sources, then he is notable enough to satisfy me. Yes, his claims as a mystic are irrelevant to notability, but almost the same thing could be said of Sir Isaac Newton. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article already links to significant coverage in a magazine. He gets coverage elsewhere as well, as others have found. Not liking what he teaches, thinking its nonsense, isn't a valid reason to delete something. Why does this AFD not have the Google news and whatnot search links at the top? Someone filed it wrong. Dream Focus 04:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve, noteworthy fringer. Off2riorob (talk) 00:53, 10 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.

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

The result was keep. Shown to be sourceable, but it would have been MUCH better if the sources had actually been added to the article during the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball blackout policy[edit]

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

No sources for two years NDState 05:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Delete Not only unsourced, but is covered at Mlb#Blackout_policy CTJF83 chat 06:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The reason that this is "covered at Mlb#Blackout_policy" is because this is a sub-page of MLB. It is not a content fork, but a page established to keep the original page from becoming overlong and thus unreadable. Carrite (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This page is horrible, what is on this page, that can't be covered at Mlb#Blackout_policy?? The lead is a bunch of rambling, and this page can easily be covered in a paragraph or maybe 2 on the MLB page. CTJF83 chat 15:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - The question here is not whether the sourcing of this article is good. It is not. AfD is not designed to eliminate legitimate articles for the reason of inadequate sourcing, those are to be improved by further editing. The question here isn't even whether this topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms (even though it clearly is) since this is a sub-page of Major League Baseball established for technical reasons to keep the main article short. In fact, there is no reason for this article to have been challenged in the first place... Carrite (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish people would stop saying speed keep without reading WP:SK, none of the reasons apply CTJF83 chat 15:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per Carrite unsourced is not a reason for deletion. Derild 49 21 ☼ 15:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of sourcing is not a reason for deletion. The summary at MLB is a short snippet of the page. If something is on this page but not on the other, then it should be kept.--LAAFan 20:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the same unsourced crap...the page doesn't satisfy WP:V, how long should we keep it unsourced, forever? CTJF83 chat 20:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unsourced articles are not necessarily candidates for deletion unsourceable articles are. What I think the other keep !voters are saying is "we all know that this exists, so don't try to tell us that you followed WP:BEFORE and couldn't find anything." Article can certainly be cleaned up, of course, but AfD is not for cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Carrite and Jclemens. Of course, sources should be added but there is no time limit. Rlendog (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well there is the biggest downfall of Wikipedia, 1000 of unsourced pages, and noone caring to delete them till they are fixed. CTJF83 chat 03:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no deadline on Wikipedia articles. The subject passes notability guidelines, and huffing about a notable article needing cleanup is not grounds for deletion. Vodello (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please do not link me to essays and pretend they are policy, in any form. CTJF83 chat 05:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Further sources that could be incorporated into the article on this notable subject: [25][26][27][28][29][30][31] This AFD is a call for cleanup, and not a valid reason for deletion. If the information in the article cannot be substantiated by reliable sources, then we rewrite the content to fit existing reliable sources. Vodello (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you, looks like good sources. CTJF83 chat 17:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        There are some pretty decent sources in that list, but all the information in those articles could easily be put in just the main MLB page. Why is there a need for its own page? Most of this article is about the blackout areas, however, unless I am blind I have not seen any reliable source verifying the claims of the blackout map or related content... where are they? NDState 22:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and stop defending the article for it to be deleted, sourcing does exist for the policy, being unreferenced isn't a reason for deletion unless no references can be sourced, or the references are too local where WP:NOT#NEWS applies, unreliable, or passing mentions. Secret ^account 04:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Take a look at WP:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence. The material has been challenged, the challenge has not been met.. hence delete it. It is lacking a reliable source and none of you have proven otherwise. I looked and looked and looked and there are no reliable sites verifying the majority of the claims in the article. NDState 06:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The material shouldn't have been challenged in the first place. It's a frivoulous and ill-considered nom. Challenging perfectly sourceable and notable content with the hopes that it will be deleted based on WP:BURDEN is the saddest form of deletionism because it is NOT improving Wikipedia, it's destroying it. </rant> -- œ^™ 04:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm glad as an admin, you can AGF, with a relatively inexperienced user. CTJF83 chat 04:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes my comments were harsh, and were only out of frustration, and directed at deletionism in general not necessarily this user. I understand the user is doing what they think is right. As far as inexperience goes, I had no idea. Based on their comments here they show a very capable knowledge of policy. -- œ ^™ 04:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Thank you OlEnglish for so quickly belitting me, someone very new with wikipedia policy. Its comments like this that run participation away. If this nomination was so frivolous and ill-considered please explain how. All of you keep claiming to have all of these great reliable sources, yet I have not seen any that are considered reliable by wikipedia policy. If its perfectly source-able why has no reliable sources been found or added that support most of the material?? I am glad that I am supposedly just out to delete wikipedia and make it worse. Funny, I was just trying to help out. I saw an article that had been tagged as not having sources for two years and there were still no sources. I sought out reliable sources that would substantiate the claims in the article and could not find any. I thought the correct action was to move to remove it as it appeared to be original research. I studied wikipedia's policies and found that my course of action was justified, based on WP:BURDEN, etc. But all it seems is people are getting in a tizzy over it. These same people still have not provided reliable sources. I wonder whom here is trying to improve wikipedia and whom is trying to destroy it. NDState 02:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I honestly assumed you were an experienced editor, sorry if you felt belittled. I was in a rather crunchy mood up there. The point I wanted to make is that if an article CAN be verified then it shouldn't be deleted only because someone hasn't sourced it yet. Unsourced articles should be tagged as such, that's why we have the ((unreferenced)) tag. If, as you say, you looked for sources and sincerely couldn't find any to support any of the claims, then taking it to AfD was the correct course of action. However, I do believe this content is verifiable, source reliability notwithstanding, notable, and fills a gap in Wikipedia's coverage of the subject. Any original research can be edited out. And if that means stubbifying it then so be it. -- œ ^™ 20:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely notable subject. Last I checked, we didn't have a deadline on articles. Cleanup requests aren't a valid reason to delete. Vodello (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sources. According to WP:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence the burden of evidence lies in the editor that added the material. Since they clearly have not provided the sources it most certainly qualifies for deletion. The material was challenged two years ago through the use of a tag and it was not responded to and the issue was not fixed, hence the burden of evidence has not been met. Additionally, according to that same page: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them." The editors have been given ample time. Additionally, I searched for reliable sources and was not able to find any in regards to the majority of the article. Furthermore, Wikipedia policy states that material that fails to be verified can be deleted. Proper process was followed requesting sources, none were added... it can and should be deleted. NDState 04:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've yet to see any of you Keep "voters" provide even one reliable source on this information. CTJF83 chat 05:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[32] Secret ^account 14:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did anyone actually read this article, it essentially only supports that there is a blackout, it doesnt detail the specifics. Again, this does not support most of the article. NDState 02:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then the article clearly needs to be rewritten and not deleted. The subject is clearly notable, and we have many reliable sources to establish that claim. You're calling for cleanup, and you're more than welcome to fix it yourself. Vodello (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - If I could find a reliable source that fits what wikipedia describes as a reliable source then I would add them. I cant find any reliable sources and apparently neither can anyone else. NDState 22:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please tell me how the seven sources I provided from ESPN and books are unreliable. Vodello (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry I did not see your links before I posted. However, since you asked: http://www.bizofbaseball.com : (is this a blog?) this doesnt really say much about the blackout. One of the articles is not free, and the other articles talk more about the history. They dont support the map or many other claims. I would be fine with an article related to those facts or the history, but the current one appears to be original research. But I think the history and information can easily just be covered in the main MLB page. NDState 22:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not going to repeat myself a third time. I've already said what needs to be done with the unsourced material. Vodello (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing is possible, as demonstrated by Secret's link above and short GNews searches ([33] [34]). Simply because no one has done it until now does not mean the article should be deleted. See WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE which both say that any article that can be improved through editing is ineligible for deletion (based on those concerns). Regards So Why 07:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the "sources" listed do not substantiate the claims made in the article, especially the map. I would still like to see these sources all of you keep talking about (and no they cannot be blogs or copies of this article on other sites, per wikipedia policy). NDState 02:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If parts of the article cannot be sourced, remove them per WP:V. But to justify the deletion of the whole article, it needs to be completely unverifiable, not only in parts. If it parts of it can be sourced, as demonstrated above, it's no longer a question of deletion but of editing. Regards So Why 18:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Would you please explain to me how, in the examples above, the claims in the wiki article were verified??? They dont support 90+% of them! I suppose there are some decent links above, but much is still unsourcedNDState 22:06, 5 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.

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

150 wins 150 saves[edit]

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

Per discussion here, this list of two people isn't notable enough to be its own page, but should be a footnote on the Wins and Saves pages. Muboshgu (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Muboshgu (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the feat isn't really all that notable... I know some would say "well, the fact that it's so exclusive that only two people have accomplished it would warrant an article", but I don't think that necessarily applies here. (And to be honest, the development of "specialty" pitchers has kinda lessened the importance of each of these feats.) Azzurre (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really an article about a topic but just a statement of the fact that only these two people have done this. There is not much else to say.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough coverage of this as a topic to warrant a separate list; can easily be made a footnote in the lists of top pitchers in wins and saves to compensate for its removal. — KV5 • Talk • 11:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Azzurre. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 16:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We really have too many of these club articles for sports stats that don't really satisfy GNG. The all-time leaderboards (though top 500 is a bit crazy IMO) and a few of the classics like 300 win club, 500 HR club, etc, but we go into really nitty-gritty detail sometimes. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Until significantly more pitchers achieve this "milestone" and until it gets more widespread attention, it would suffice to note in the Smoltz and Eckersley articles that they are the only two pitchers to accomplish this. Of course, it is still a bit of a freak stat, in that if you made it 140-140 at least one more pitcher would enter the "club", etc. If it was 300-300 I'd be more inclined to treat this as significant. Rlendog (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Azzurre. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:05, 5 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.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Rospars[edit]

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

He works for the government. Can't see that he's done anything actually notable. Is there anything else? Unreferenced and has been subject to a bit of a WP:COATRACK about some Irish controversy (removed previously by others). The-Pope (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article lacks any reliable secondary sources to establish notability per WP:BIO. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the nominator understates the role of Mr. Rospars. He ran the new media segment of Barack Obama's 2008 presidential election campaign, and is widely considered an authority on "new media" (whatever that might be). The news link above gives ample sourcing for notability. Somebody will need to update the article. Ray^Talk 04:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rospars is considered in "digital giant" by one of the world's most respected media organisations in a different continent from where he operates,[35] and simply clicking on the Google News, Books and Scholar links spoon-fed in the nomination leads to hundreds more such sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He was interviewed as part of a show called "digital giants". Slight and subtle difference. Most of those refs from Gnews are comments by him about others. Very few are truly biographical about him. He is borderline notable and he's taking the spin industry into a "new direction" but to me it's still just a job that is a bit higher profile than most, but still not, in my mind, subject to non-trivial coverage of HIM (not of his work or his comments). If it ends up keep I'm not going to lose sleep over it, but as long as the best of those refs make it into the article, I'll be happy. The-Pope (talk) 23:29, 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, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well, OK, I guess he's notable: [36]. You sure wouldn't know it from the article, though - it's completely unsourced. --MelanieN (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But we still don't know it from just a google news list. Which of the "refs" actually provide information about Joe and which ones are just trivial mentions of his name in an article?The-Pope (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the coverage I can find is basically either "Rospars was Obama's New Media Director", with no biographical information, or "Joe Rospars said..." and a quote from him. I could not find significant coverage of him which did more than confirm his post. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:30, 9 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.

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

The result was keep. The title might need changing, but that aside the consensus is to keep this article. Hopefully someone will find sources, and update this article! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Internazionale Milano vs. Italian clubs[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; the article mainly consists of the head-to-head records between clubs (an unencyclopedic topic as is) and contains no prose ("Excessive listing of statistics"); also contains no references nor external links, and would be difficult to maintain 100% (it hasn't itself been updated since November 2009). Azzurre (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. —Azzurre (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keepable - a specialist reference book or football encylopedia would contain this information, so it's reasonable for Wikipedia to do so also. As the nominator correctly points out, our policy states that "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." This article is currently deficient in that regard, but I do think it is possible for text to be added to put parts of it into context. It is well-organized, and although parts of it are arguably not worth including ("excessive detail" is a debate for the article talk page; a football encyclopedia would include this level of information though), it is clear that the information can't just be merged into F.C. Internazionale Milano records and statistics since this page, Derby della Madonnina, Derby d'Italia and F.C. Internazionale Milano in Europe are already are, or contain, lengthy "broken out" subsections of that parent. This information is well-organized (as WP:NOT states, "consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists" as has been done here) and the fact it is out of date could be reasonably amended since the statistics here are not particularly obscure to a subject enthusiast. TheGrappler (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - the article on List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics is an FA, so any useful info from this article should be included on the existing article F.C. Internazionale Milano honours, records and statistics. Giant Snowman 17:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Snowman. Sandman888 (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep for consistency. If a little club like Luton can have a featured list with the same information on Luton Town F.C. league record by opponent, then so should Inter. Sandman888 (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC) OTOH, perhaps the Luton list should be merged into records and statistics? Sandman888 (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily oppose a merge... referring to Luton Town, is it really at all significant that they've gone 2-1-1 against Royal Ordnance Factories F.C., a club that hasn't been around since 1896? I understand the "Luton has one, so it makes sense for Inter to, also" argument, but the degree some of them go to is absurd. But looking at these charts, the information is just... trivial. A merger into F.C. Internazionale Milano honours, records and statistics (as a straight-forward sortable table) makes much more sense to me than a stand-alone article.

Of course, all of that would STILL need a source; the current article doesn't have a reference to anything. I don't know where one could be found online. Surely, there are some in print somewhere (most likely in Italian), but either way, those numbers would need to be confirmed. And of course, those numbers would be changing every time Inter played a match. And considering this article hadn't been updated since 22 November 2009, as I said in the beginning, there's even more work that would need to go into it to get it current.

Is there anybody who would care to take on that project? The fact that it hadn't been updated in nine months leads me to believe that there isn't. (But that's not a fair argument for an AfD, I know, but I'm just making that point.) Azzurre (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep along the same lines as Sandman. The Luton list has previously been AfD'd and kept, and it would therefore be entirely wrong to delete this more important one (before I'm accused of tribal digs, it's more important than any potential Watford one would be as well). I'm not opposed to a merge, but if that is the result, it should be applied universally. --W F C-- 17:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it can be sourced, and rename to F.C. Internazionale Milano league record by opponent which is a better title. Mostly per Sandman and WFC. I'm not entirely convinced about the need for a separate, although the info if verifiable is good and should be kept - but the wider issue would be better discussed at an RfC than at AfD. Alzarian16 (talk) 18:56, 6 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.

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Discovery Communications headquarters hostage crisis[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTNEWS; does not appear to have any major consequences (hostages freed, gunman killed) and no lasting notability. —fetch ·comms 03:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an ideologically motivated crime which is, of course, the real reason why assorted Gorebots on this page want the article to disappear under various formalistic pretexts. The ideology - the pernicious idea that humans are a useless burden on the planet - lives on. James Lee was expressly cited - together with the Unabomber - as an extreme example of a wider school of murderous ideology in an opinion piece in the Telegraph newspaper in London, and will remain a historic reference point of homicidal global warmism. WikiFlier (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now it should be deleted then redone in about five days then we will have more information about the matter user mcdonaldsman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.166.28 (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait one week...the event is not even 12 hours old. The New Raymie (t • c) 03:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Shirley, you must be joking. It's true that "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia" but this is clearly notable if you look at the cited references, which are sure to grow as more information is published. See Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Criminal_acts: "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on reliable sources." Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:PERPETRATOR which states "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." Tiptoety ^talk 03:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" - if this develops into an event with lasting notability, we can restore or recreate the article at that time. Triona (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're taking that way out of context. Let's continue with the very next sentence of that policy: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This is not routine reporting about announcements or sports. What WP:NEWS means is that we shouldn't include coverage of every VFW pancake breakfast and every little league team that wins a trophy. It does not mean we shouldn't have articles about events that are covered in depth by every major media outlet in the country (and possibly the world). Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For fuller context, NOTNEWS also refers to the "enduring notability of persons events" [emphasis mine]. Just because news stations report events in the hope that they will capture the next Oklahoma City bombing or R. Budd Dwyer, that doesn't mean that breaking news reporting is always notable. Time will tell. Location (talk)
Keep What's the rush? There's no deadline. The encyclopedia is not harmed by the inclusion of this article, people are searching for this, and we can and should wait a few more days to assess the lasting notability of this event. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On-the-fence-delete First, could WP:N/CA be any less helpful of a guideline? My personal yardstick for these incidents is that if only the perp died, then it's not going to be notable—it will fade from the public memory in due time. Though the perp's history with Discovery makes for a more interesting story, I don't think that the story will get legs. See, I just naturally called "it" a "story", not an "event" or "shooting" or anything... --Livitup (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like Wikipedia isn't too sure about these events. 2010 Pentagon shooting went through an AFD a month ago with a "no consensus". Similar event (only the perpetrator died), same arguments (NOT#NEWS, ONEEVENT). Perhaps an RfC is needed to assess this further? hbdragon88 (talk) 06:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N/CA. A crime is confirmed to have occurred (obviously), and worldwide media coverage[37][38][39][40][41] confers notability. Are people really suggesting that the fact that the hostages were rescued makes it less notable? Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Raoul Moat, Cho Seung-hui - they are similar situations and they redirect to the appropriate article, which both have stayed on Wikipedia. Superchrome (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable enough to me. Grue 07:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I say we keep the article and ban the deletionist asshole who nominated this article for deletion. Xizer (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hourick likes this!--Hourick (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xizer, lets keep it civil please. Tiptoety ^talk 19:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Discovery Communications - in fact, there already is a paragraph there. It perfectly suffice. --Tone 08:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.180.223 (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable plus it has something to say about social networking and the media. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 10:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I'm on the fence and I am only slightly leaning toward keep. I think WP:NOTNEWS applies here, but I think there is significance in the motivations of the attack and also in the social media aspect. Perhaps a better article would be on James Lee or as said above to merge this article with Discovery Channel.--v/r - T P 11:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 2010 Pentagon shooting "had no lasting implication" (gunman killed before he could kill anyone) and yet it has a page. The 2010 Las Vegas Courthouse Shooting "had no lasting implications" (gunman killed before he could kill anyone) and it has a page. 99.231.201.11 (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Once again I'm forced to point out that "in the news" is not the same thing as "falling under NOTNEWS". Umbralcorax (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets notability guidelines. David Straub (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Tone above. Mention in Discovery page is good enough. The article itself does not add much to encyclopedia. -- Ashish -g55 13:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can't bring myself to make a call either way, but I think this is another case highlighting the dire need to overhaul WP:NOTNEWS to be more explicit about what it's actually supposed to mean, since it keeps serving such a major role in AFD discussions with people using it to support opposing views. Is it intended to rule out "most newsworthy events", or is it intended to rule out "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities"? Seeing the same guideline applied over and over with such inconsistent outcomes is just tiresome. Propaniac (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is not routine news, this is extraordinary news, and as such is worthy of being recorded in Wikipedia. Rob (talk) 15:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why is it that every goddamn time I check Wikipedia for a current event, some idiot has nominated the article for deletion? y'all need to deal with this, it makes you look like a bunch of clowns 76.66.102.140 (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WTF? Keepscases (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Heroeswithmetaphors. Additionally, does not meet the crieria that the submitter presented as criteria for deletion. Almafeta (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For Now, until then, keep mention on the Discovery Communications page, until more info is revealed. GD1223 (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Meets Notability criteria. 64.89.89.238 (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dpaanlka (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Meets Notability criteria.--74.132.52.23 (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW Keep. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I don't see the need to rush. Maybe discuss a merge later if the article fails to get to any normal size. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All over the news yesterday and numerous stories on it so I fail to see how it's WP:NOTNEWS.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same as the Unitarian church shooting. Knoxville Unitarian Universalist church shooting. --DHeyward (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENT. This knee-jerk "write about it NOW" mindset is getting irritating. Tarc (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lesser topics have been created and kept. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 22:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with Discovery Channel article. Events were too noteworthy to ignore/delete.Hotdaddy (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is only "notable" because it happened at Discovery's headquarters. Had this happened at a carwash it would have been a single article in the local newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.20.163.130 (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing it didn't happen at a car wash, then. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Heroeswithmetaphors. WereWolf (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This event dominated the American news media for an entire afternoon. I get the feeling that people around here nominate articles for deletion not for failing notability tests, but to make themselves feel important. Valadius (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Discovery Communications. It doesn't seem to me as significant enough to have its own article at this time. We can always split it off again. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 02:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although no objection to reevaluating this in a few months (say, 6 months) to determine whether it had any lasting impact. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The more you know about the politics and culture of the United States, the more obvious it becomes: this is not going to go away for a while. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This event belongs to a family of crimes that are almost always notable in American culture (individual madman rails against large corporation, takes hostages in a suicide stand-off.) News sources are already ample; sociological sources are likely to follow within a month. Given the existence of reliable sources now, it is logical and appropriate to maintain an article to allow for more scholarly sources to develop. The article may always be considered for deletion in the unlikely event that it proves insignificant. (As an aside, the rule of thumb for these crimes is that scholarly interest - and hence, encyclopedic notability -- is a function of the fame of the corporation attacked. If a man attacks a local car lot, scholarly attention is unlikely. If a man attacks a national television channel because of a controversy over environmentalism, scholarly interest is virtually certain. Sociologists love events like these.) Xoloz (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and link to ecofascism. andycjp (talk) 06:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the notability may be subject to change, doesn't meet Delete criteria. Maverick (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm neutral on this. Suggest closing the AfD discussion for now and re-open it in a week to see if article is notable enough. This is just another overzealous AfD. --Œcolampadius (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is strongly related to pressing global issues including climate change, species extinction, human overpopulation, and environmental destruction resulting from excessive development. The article also relates to other instances in which radical environmentalists have used violence to gain direct access to media, e.g. the Unabomber. Such instances are likely to become more common as the impacts of climate change and loss of ecosystem services become more widespread. Most importantly the article relates to antihumanism and the agendas of existing antihuman organizations, e.g. Church of Euthanasia, VHEMT. Link to radical environmentalism, unabomber, church of euthanasia, daniel quinn. --victimofleisure 14:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Discovery Communications. I know this AfD is headed for "keep," but I was surprised this had its own entry. It seems like the one really notable fact about this incident was that the company targeted is a major media entity, so I think the text should reside there. Mr. Darcy talk 14:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Discovery Communications, unless we're changing the name at the top left of my page to Wikinews. This was a three-hour chunk of the news cycle, and that's it. Xoloz above says it will have 'scholarly interest' - well, considering any coverage has already devolved to "what a weirdo" and that's about it, I doubt it's going to be in any textbooks anytime soon. WP:NOTNEWS people. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Discovery Communications per the above. Fails WP:EVENTS. Runs afoul of WP:BREAKING, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:RECENT. Location (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As can be expected with any major news story, we come to Wikipedia to find some good coverage the organizes the news reports and puts them in context... topped by a deletion notice. No one who cites NOTNEWS to delete articles has ever read it. It's not about banning breaking international news, but wedding announcements and obituaries. Wnt (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Although that's certainly one interpretation, it does not take into account the full context of WP:NOTNEWS. As you know from reading it, NOTNEWS distinctly refers to considering the "enduring notability of persons events" and on this "...breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." Then again, your crystal ball may be better than mine. Location (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not emphasized, but not disparaged either. Wnt (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a distinct, separate article. The event is notable. It made the national news for at least two days. It should not be merged into Discovery Communications, as that article is about the company, not about every complaint made about it by random crackpots and terrorists. If merged, it would simply cause clutter.—Quicksilver^{T @} 20:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Discovery Communications per the above.OneHappyHusky (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kafziel. Clearly notable due to volume of coverage. --Falcorian ^(talk)
delete Do not give hime the publicity he craved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.221.69 (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that your only reason to vote delete? Superchrome (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly notable event, Start have labelled this a terrorist attack and is one of the first enviro crimes of this type. mark nutley (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Discovery Communications per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:EFFECT.--74.57.5.235 (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - as hostage crises go, this seems to be at least moderately notable (if mainly for the apparent motivations of the perpetrator). It's certainly more significant than the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign office hostage crisis, and that's had an article for almost three years now. Robofish (talk) 23:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now Revisit in 3-6 months to examine longterm notability 16:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep, relevant hostage crisis, relevant motive. Redwolf24 (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hostage crisis that is notable. Agree with person two votes above me. Buggie111 (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough. (Gabinho^>:) 08:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, This story made international news, with coverage in many news outlets. How much more noteworthy could it get? This AfD is ridiculous. -- noosph e re 14:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This story was barely a blip on the radar and has no lasting cultural significance. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The police kill the perpetuator. This is rare elsewhere in the world and hostage taking is too. This makes it worth noting. 07:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of articulated bus systems[edit]

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

This list won't ever be finished because it encompasses a broad subject that lacks notability. The article currently lists 10 systems in South America, with no content for systems in Europe, North America, Asia, or Africa. The article had been created in June 2007, but the original creator stopped editing an hour after its creation, and only four more systems have been added since then. Apollo1758 (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nomination, the article is not useful in its current form. Considering the potential of such a list, note that articulated buses are very common, and they operate just like any other bus. Fleet updates can easily add or remove buses and so a list like this difficult to keep updated (this is in contrast to trolleybus systems where changes demand a major change to the infrastructure in the form of overhead lines). Having articulated buses in the fleet is hardly a distinguishing characteristic of a bus system. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, the entries on the list are mainly bus rapid transit systems, systems where buses run on separate lanes instead of on the regular roads and streets. However, we already have a perfectly good List of bus rapid transit systems, and I cannot see this title as a plausible redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indiscriminate (and woefully incomplete) list which doesn't add anything to the lists we already have, namely List of bus rapid transit systems and List of bus operating companies. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 00:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is false as the topic is notable. For example, see Uses of higher capacity buses in transit service. Sources such as this will enable the article to be expanded quite easily and such improvement is mandated by our editing policy which advises against deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Interesting source, although the main issue seems to be that such a list would be extremely long and cumbersome, especially if it lists systems from the whole world. If such a list were to exist, it would need to exist as separate articles, and perhaps a country-specific list could exist for countries such as France. By a lack of notability, I mean that there aren't reliable third-party sources for bus systems in South America, Asia, Africa, and other regions. --Apollo1758 (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The trouble is that this potentially useful list is poorly defined. What constitutes a system? Does one route run by Wilts & Dorset count? If so, then it should be titled List of examples of uses of articulated buses, and would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. If it's only for complete systems, then it's redundant to List of bus rapid transit systems. Either way it fails WP:SAL. Alzarian16 (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What constitutes an articulated bus system? If it's just any system with articulated buses, that's too broad. If it's for systems with exclusively articulated buses, that has to be made clear. In the current state of the article, delete.— Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without a concrete definition of "system," this is an indiscriminate list, and one that will likely never be complete. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Kinu. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:07, 5 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.

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. Nothing the WP considers notable DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Busch[edit]

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

This unreferenced BLP has been around for over two years. A quick google search verifies all the information on this page, but it also told me he averaged less than six points a game in his senior season at Colorado State. It also doesn't appear as if he's signing a professional contract. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced BLP. JeremyMcClean (Talk) 03:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for basketball players and it is an unsourced BLP. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wholly unnotable college basketball player whose career is now over. If he becomes notable later somebody can re-create the article - not like it will take long since it is one line long. Rikster2 (talk) 20:20, 8 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.

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

The result was Keep. Several editors have taken an interest in rescuing and improving the article, including the addition of two verifiable references that indicate significance of numbers in Hindu scripture. Whether to merge this to the article on Hindu units of measurement can be discussed on the article's talk page. Mandsford 17:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of numbers in Vedas[edit]

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

Non-notable trivia. Suggest redirecting to Hindu units of measurement. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 01:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this article was made by a problematic, and now blocked, user but there is a valid subject here or somewhere around here. I wouldn't call it trivial, at least not all of it. The use of numbers in various holy books is a subject of valid interest. That said, we don't have List of numbers in the Bible (or anything similar), so maybe this isn't the right way to approach it. Given the poor quality of the article it is very tempting to look for existing, better, coverage and to redirect to that. I was the first person to redirect it to Hindu units of measurement but Redtigerxyz thought that was a poor fit and thought deletion was better. He explained why on my talk page and I can see his point about the redirect. The trouble is that none of the possible redirects seems to cover the whole subject. Hindu units of measurement is mostly just about units. Hindu cosmology is a good fit for some parts but not all of it is about cosmology. Indian mathematics also covers the subject but only very briefly. There is no obvious single redirect target but deletion is not obvious either, which is why PROD got removed. In the meantime we are left with an unsourced article that lacks context or a coherent limit to its remit. There are a lot of numbers in the Vedas and a complete list would include a lot of trivia. Is it rescuable? I don't know, but I am inclined to give it a chance. I ~~!vote neutral, for now, and~~ will tag it for rescue. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article lacks references that establishes its notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I undid DanielRigal's "edit of redirecting it to Hindu units of measurement as the current article covers much more than Hindu units of measurement. It also wrongly claims the Vedas elaborate on details of Hindu cosmology like the mention of the lokas such Patala, which are not found in the Vedas, but in the later Puranas. I am not sure from where "Number of species of birds" etc. is derived" ... "The title has no context and limit. The Vedas have numerous figures. "List of numbers in Vedas" does not only cover Hindu units of measurement, so a redirect is not proper IMO." (Copy-paste from my discussion with DanielRigal on his talk). --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about renaming the article? Facts on how the Hindu religion mentions .... size of the universe, number of species of everything, distance between events and locations? This information should be somewhere. The Padma Purana is where the number of birds is listed as a million. Page six [42] says that, they showing the original text and the translation. Lot of places have that information [43] Not sure if there is one that list the exact page/chapter/section/verse/whatever the original source mentions that in. Dream Focus 20:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the facts about the universe etc. can be included in Hindu cosmology. It is inaccurate to say that these facts are in the Vedas, they are in the Puranas. Even if the article is moved, even then the redirect List of numbers in Vedas needs to be deleted. I am copy-pasting the facts found by Dream Focus in the Hindu cosmology page. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This information isn't just about the measurement system. It list specific information about their religion, such as how large the Universe is, how many kinds of material bodies for soul in material world, and other things. Searching Hindu text for the number and the name of what is mentioned, should instantly find references for each entry. If you sincerely doubt something, then tag it with a ^{[citation needed]}. Dream Focus 20:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid risking OR or SYN it would help to find an RS that already covers this subject apart from the primary sources. I don't doubt that there are some but they have not come to light yet. We need to cast this in a way that has a clear and limited remit so that the list does not become unmanageable or arbitrary in what it includes. If we could find some secondary sources on the subject that might point us in the right direction. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a bit of Googling and the search term "numbers in the Vedas" turns up some stuff. I have put a findsources link at the top. I haven't looked at the results in detail. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of this article is unsourced nonsense. Supposed measurements include "Dimension of soul", "Number of human species", "Number of planetary systems in /this/ material world", "Covering of the universe", etc. etc. etc. None of this even means anything, and certainly none of it is sourced. Even if you can find a source for some of it, it is doubtful you could prove that any of this is notable information. SnottyWong ^chat 22:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religious claims can often seem nonsensical to people not from that religion but the religious claims of the major world religions are notable and significant and hence need to be covered. The Christian Trinity is perceived as nonsense by most non-Christians, and even many Christians struggle to make sense of it, yet its notability is not in question.

The main secular interest in this subject is that it shows an interest in dealing with very large numbers and in describing all aspects of the world with numbers long before most other societies and hence sets the stage for later significant Indian advances in mathematics. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - on the basis that numerology is significant in the Vedic religions similar to list of animals in the Bible. No prejudice against renominating later, but I'm pretty sure there are sources to WP:verify notability of this topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination suggests redirection which is performed by normal editing, not by deletion. I had no difficulty finding a good source for this article which just seems to need work in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have gathered a few delete votes, so clearly some people think deletion is better than a redirect. I think we have to let this run its course now. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I meant to delete the history, and then redirect it anyway, but I also needed to see who wanted deletion, so that's why I initiated the discussion. (Maybe, this should be "Articles for discussion" much like TfD is to templates.) :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 13:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per reliable source found by Colonel Warden. Nothing in here that can't be fixed by careful attribution. —CodeHydro 17:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One mention does not establish any kind of notability for this.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Without following some of the "See also" links, I have no idea what this list is about. The list is filled with Hindu terms. Without links to other articles, these terms are unknown to the reader. Without extensive improvements, I suppose I would say delete, but I am unwilling to cast a vote either way. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a start at addressing this. I have put a brief contextual paragraph on the front. I have linked all the phrases and tagged for clarification where the terms seem particularly unclear. Many of the links are red, suggesting that they are non-standard terms/spellings. I have also slapped a "citation needed" on all the items. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: OK. I am coming off the fence. Here is what I propose:

Move to List of numbers in Hindu scriptures (to address the issue of not all this stuff being in the Vedas at all)
Reformat the list with 4 columns: Property, Number or measurement, Book, Chapter and verse. (that covers sourcing for each item)

How does this sound? --DanielRigal (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Hindu units of measurement (and probably move to List of numbers in Hindu scriptures as suggested by Daniel above). Without references to establish verifiability or notability, this seems the best option. utcursch | talk 04:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I looked at the article as it now stands - and see lots of red links (not in itself a bad thing, it could encourage people to write new articles - but in this case, there seems too many of them!) and lots of citation needed (in fact, almost all of the numbers here are unreferenced). If an expert in the Vedas wants this userfied until they can source it, all well and good - but failing that, I see nothing to indicate that this is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia at this time -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:12, 9 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.

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rama Ekadashi[edit]

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

No refs, does not indicate notability. There are lots of other days out there. See Putrada Pausha-shukla Ekadashi for a similar rationale. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 01:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article was created by an editor who thought that all the Ekadashis should have separate articles. He made articles for them all (apart from the three that already had them) but they all had more or less the same text. He failed to indicate any specific distinguishing features for each one other than its place in the calendar, which is already covered by the table in the main article. This is the only one not yet to be deleted. If there is anything significant that occurs specifically on this one Ekadashi then that could justify an article (although not this POV mess) but if not then it should be deleted. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No proof of significance, that makes it different from other Ekadashis. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:39, 4 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.

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

The result was keep. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Trux: Arenas[edit]

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

No references or sources listed in the article and is a stub. The only notable thing about this game is that it was made by Data Design Interactive (already nominated by another user for deletion), who is infamous for making games that receive very negative reception. Nilocla ^{♈ ☮} 01:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but merge really bad game with horrible reviews still meets WP:N. Please follow WP:BEFORE. That said all the games in this series should probably be in the same article. The reviews indicate they are all basically the same game afterall. [44] [45] are valid reviews and thus sources. Hobit (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the company article has been nominated for deletion (consensus there appears to be 'keep' in any case) has no bearing on the notability of this game. Neither does a negative reception. A notability tag informing interested users of the need to improve references might be more appropriate. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Some [46] reliable source coverage, like [47]. OK, it seems to be shovelware to make a quick buck. Unfortunately, that's speculative (IGN review does this) so merging would need better reasoning/sourcing. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really, a merge to the publisher is an editorial decision. If consensus is that this is the right thing to do, we do it. Hobit (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - How many reviews actually call these games shovelware from each other? If you are to merge them all into one article, you'd need to say why these particular games are presented together. And that would need to be sourced. Alas, I see only one source saying this, hence this borders on OR and speculation. Merge if you can, I am pro preserving content, but as long as it's backed up by published refs. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 13:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - We have games merged by publisher all the time. No RS is required for that, it's an editorial call. Hobit (talk) 07:19, 4 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.

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

The result was keep. No prejudice against a speedy renomination in case the article does not improve (non-admin closure) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 03:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offroad Extreme! Special Edition[edit]

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

No references or sources listed in the article and is a stub. The only notable thing about this game is that it was made by Data Design Interactive (already nominated by another user for deletion), who is infamous for making games that receive very negative reception. Nilocla ^{♈ ☮} 01:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the company article has been nominated for deletion (consensus there appears to be 'keep' in any case) has no bearing on the notability of this game. Neither does a negative reception. A notability tag informing interested users of the need to improve references might be more appropriate. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Some [48] reliable source coverage, like this. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:56, 2 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.

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

The result was keep. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 03:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kawasaki Snowmobiles[edit]

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

No references or sources listed in the article and is a stub. The only notable thing about this game is that it was made by Data Design Interactive (already nominated by another user for deletion), who is infamous for making games that receive very negative reception. Nilocla ^{♈ ☮} 01:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the company article has been nominated for deletion (consensus there appears to be 'keep' in any case) has no bearing on the notability of this game. Neither does a negative reception. A notability tag informing interested users of the need to improve references might be more appropriate. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Some reliable coverage, like [49]. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:57, 2 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.

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

The result was keep. No prejudice against speedy renomination if the article does not improve soon. (non-admin closure) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 03:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Desktop Racing[edit]

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

No references or sources listed in the article. The only notable thing about this game is that it was made by Data Design Interactive (already nominated by another user for deletion), who is infamous for making games that receive very negative reception. Nilocla ^{♈ ☮} 01:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the company article has been nominated for deletion (consensus there appears to be 'keep' in any case) has no bearing on the notability of this game. Neither does a negative reception. A notability tag informing interested users of the need to improve references might be more appropriate. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Some reliable coverage, like [50]. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:58, 2 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.

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. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Extreme[edit]

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

The only notable thing about this game is that it was made by Data Design Interactive, who is infamous for making games that receive very negative reception. Nilocla ^{♈ ☮} 01:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any significant coverage for this game. Reach Out to the Truth 02:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the company article has been nominated for deletion (consensus there appears to be 'keep' in any case) has no bearing on the notability of this game. Neither does a negative reception. A notability tag informing interested users of the need to improve references might be more appropriate. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listed in reliable sources, but no reviews or acclaim beyond that. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note There should be reviews in off-line publications. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If any can be added, I'm all for keep. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I won't be able to help with PS2 reviews, but the game was released on the Wii and I have a pile of Nintendo magazines that I can have a look through. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 10:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect and maybe merge to publisher. Hobit (talk) 13:26, 8 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.

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) 05:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Showbread (album)[edit]

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

This is a bundled nomination of the following articles:

Showbread (album)
Too Much Metal for One Hand
The Dissonance of Discontent
Goodbye Is Forever (album)
Human Beings Are Too Shallow to Fall in Love
Goodnight Sweetheart, The Stitches Are Coming Apart
Showbread (band) Promotional EP
Life, Kisses, and other Wasted Efforts

These unreferenced articles are all permastub track listings of out-of-print albums that were either self-released or released by a small independent label, and none of them charted. Note that this nomination doesn't include articles on some of the later albums by this band which are still in-print and were released by larger, more notable labels. The current mention at Showbread discography is sufficient. SnottyWong ^babble 18:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: All are just track listings with little encylopedic value. I don't think being rare or out of print is enough to warrant them being kept. Mattg82 (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all for utter lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:52, 2 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.

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) 05:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of a Champion Foundation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

American charity. Article clearly written by someone with a COI. Not sure of notability or precedents. Spatulli (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. It's a marginal case, but the organization does not appear to meet the notability criteria of WP:ORG. The biggest problem is depth of coverage, which is why, I suspect, not much would be left if this article was stripped of its press release flavour and restricted to what can be established by reliable sources. The reliable sources that do exist mention the organization tangentially. Uncle Dick (talk) 17:36, 25 August 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) 00:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' notability is hard to guage from the article but appears to be marginal, however the rather clear COI/advertising issues are enough to delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:39, 2 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.

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

The result was keep. Both the commenting editors have suggested 'Weak Keep'ing the article. I expect the article to improve in the near future; if it does not, this current Keep closure has no prejudice against renewed AfDs in the near future. (non-admin closure) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 03:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Chennai Silks[edit]

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

I almost tagged this one as a speedy A7, but it was referenced by The Hindu. However, the reference appears to be only a press release. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating

Pothys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep for both. Both are leading clothing stores in Tamil Nadu and have had significant continuous coverage in Tamil media (enough to satisfy GNG). But since the coverage is not online i am qualifying the keep with a weak. Let me try and find Tamil media references for both articles. If i am able to do so, will strike the "weak".--Sodabottle (talk) 06:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage for Pothys : [51], [52], [53], [54], [55] , [56], [57], [58]

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, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The sources suggest that it is a regional chain. — C M B J 07:08, 3 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.

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Borislow[edit]

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

This is a person who probably meets notability requirements for inclusion, but this article has been a magnet for COI/promotional editing. I've found some sources in a Google search that establish his notability, but none of the sources on the article at present are third-party, reliable sources about this individual. I'm only advocating delete here on the grounds of blow it up and start over. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 20:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, nice. I've never heard of WP:TNT before; I like it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed. Blow it up and (maybe) start over Vartanza (talk) 22:41, 25 August 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, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:TNT is an interesting essay but it's just an essay. We need to decide on whether or not to keep this article by weighing it against WP:N. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think WP:TNT has a lot of merit, and might even be a template for what should become policy. Too much of the copyright and BLP discussions ignore common sense and [in my opinion] the law, by allowing otherwise problematic material to remain widely accessible. TNT, without knowing it probably, solves both of these problems and has definite efficiency. That said, this is not the forum to discuss that (although if you find that forum please tell me on my talk). This is a widespread product, has references, and I don't think the page as it is now is overly promotional. Shadowjams (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it

His first phone companies didn't really do anything notable except make money and lots of MLM companies in the 1990s used long-distance re-selling and didn't do anything interesting and that doesn't make him notable.
His horses have done well but not well enough and that doesn't make him notable.
He invented MagicJack and that is an interesting thing but if notability is not inherited and sources don't discuss him as a primary topic because of doing this thing and that doesn't make him notable.

Strike 3 you are out. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep A successful horse breeder and inventor, this is only at Afd because it's poorly written? Come on guys. I will be rewriting this article over the next couple days. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be clearly over the notability bar as an entrepreneur and inventor. Just because an article is written poorly has no bearing on the basic question, that of whether a subject is worthy of inclusion. Carrite (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- seems sufficiently notable as a company founder and partial/complete inventor of a notable telecommunications technology. Article is decently sourced, and notability is demonstrated in several of those sources. N2e (talk) 19:23, 6 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.

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keana Texeira[edit]

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

No significant sources, no indication of importance. All kinds of myspace/twitter/etc "references" that just do not qualify. Also, this appears to be an autobiography. — Timneu22 · talk 01:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage I could find. VirtualRevolution (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sourcing to verify notability. --DAJF (talk) 23:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minimal coverage, likely a vanity page Vartanza (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable source, no evidence of notable roles or passing of WP:MUSICBIO, promo piece Hekerui (talk) 12:12, 8 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.

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger Than Life (album)[edit]

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

Violates WP:CRYSTAL as a not noteable future album with no release date, cover or tracklist Red Flag on the Right Side 00:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Delete ~~The article has a lot of potential. A couple sources could get it over the hump.~~ Comment: Article looks a lot worse now that everything has been removed... Nolelover 00:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails notability criteria for albums and per TenPoundHammer's Law. (no release date, cover or tracklist) Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL; just speculation. —fetch ·comms 01:12, 8 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.

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

The result was delete. per consensus--lacks 3rd party RSs & unlikely to ever have them DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE AlexSB[edit]

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

Student organisation with no indication of notability. No independent references. noq (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've attempted to explain to the author what's required here, but he can't work it out. The original text was deleted as a copyvio; he then re-created the page with the minimal text you see now. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. Bramble claw x 13:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG, possible merge any useful content to IEEE and redirect. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be a bad idea to merge into the main IEEE article, since this has very little to do with a large professional organization that produces standards. 76.66.194.106 (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
sMerge into a List of IEEE student branches, with just a few words on the branch; divide the list up into IEEE regions. Note that officially, the branch is not called "AlexSB" or anything of the sort, IEEE uses branch numbers, not names. 76.66.194.106 (talk) 05:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. New secondary sources have been added. --MOHAMED ELRAYANY (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been through all of your additions and I don't see anything that indicates independent notability of your organization. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will filter it again --MOHAMED ELRAYANY (talk) 02:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have you read WP:ORG? That seems to be the sticking point here. I quote: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." --Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like a promo and much of it is in the first person indicating it was either copied from a brochure or that the author has a conflict of interest. No sources exist independent of the subject. meshach (talk) 01:22, 8 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.

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Doane[edit]

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

Directed a couple movies that don't have articles and don't seem to be notable. Has several music video credits, but only sources found online were trivial — all I could find was "Darren Doane directed the music video for X" and nothing else. The only third-party sources in this article are similarly trivial or primary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs definite cleanup... a task addressable through regular editing. As a film and music video director, the gentleman meets notability criteria. Among the films he has written, directed, or produced are Collision, Jason Mraz's Beautiful Mess, Dead Man Running, Metal by Numbers, Unleaded, Black Friday, The Urethra Chronicles, and others... along with dozens of notable and/or award-winning music videos. Per WP:CREATIVE: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." His works, both film and video, are notable and have been the subject of numerous reviews. This is not WP:INHERITED... for as a writer, director, and producer of notable works, the notability of his works IS his under guideline. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:38, 20 August 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, 26 August 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, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Worth keeping for his work on Collision alone, but has a long career in B-Movies and music video. Nominated for 2010 best video director at the CMT Music Awards for example.yorkshiresky (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:BIO, with plenty of claims to notability, as well as coverage in multiple reliable sources: [59],[60],[61],[62]. Robofish (talk) 01:17, 4 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.

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) 05:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10,000 Days Tour[edit]

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

Non notable concert tour. Article is a list of tour dates that should be reserved for fan sites. No sources to establish notability as per WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Also nominating[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 26 August 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, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator said per issues with notability.--Brave Dragon 00:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)This user is blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user — Gavia immer (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom because of notability issues. Aspects (talk) 03:28, 2 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.

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Data Design Interactive[edit]

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

A video game company known for their extremely poor set of games that are usually under-rated (like 0.7/10, etc). The citation "it is possibly the longest established entertainment development company in the world" clearly needs a source. I don't know if that makes the company more notable or not. What else makes this company notable? /Hey Mid (contributions) 18:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They developed/published enough games to be notable for that. Almost all the games have articles. Sure it lacks history section and such, but that's future work. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:36, 30 August 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, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There's no real reason to delete. This article just is a couple sources away... Nolelover 00:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reasonable enough sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see absolutely no reason to delete this article. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:23, 2 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.

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) 05:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Cantelon[edit]

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

Not notable outside Christian groups. Has had no main stream success, and is signed to minor independent record labels. Andrew Duffell (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. Can't see any other notable facts about the band.scope_creep (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have current coverage and past coverage to meet GNG and WP:MUSICBIO clause 1. Jclemens (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can't rely on ghits for notabilty. To establish notabily here, the sources need to be directly linked to the article contents. No ghits in the current coverage has links to the article. So don't count as sources to establish notability. All the past coverage ghits only discuss Ben only in his pastoral duties. In summary, there is no single primary source that makes this article notable. If I'm sounding harsh, then sorry. scope_creep (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not sounding harsh at all--you're sounding like you don't understand what WP:GHITS or WP:N actually says. Sources that exist don't have to be added into the article to demonstrate notability--"notability" exists per topic based on RS coverage of that topic, not whether or not extant RS coverage is currently reflected in the article. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Outcome should be the same as for Tim Hughes' AFD, sicne they seem to be colleagues. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, no. Has Canetlon won a GMA Dove Award? Hughes has. It's entirely reasonable for Hughes' article to be kept while this one is deleted or merged. Jclemens (talk) 02:11, 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) 00:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources linked by Jclemens. --Cyclopia ^talk 00:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not established by reliable, independant published sources. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to pass WP:MUSIC at this time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:43, 2 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.

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DDC-I, Inc.[edit]

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

I don't know if this is even notable. HeartOS is not even notable; do we have any more references outside of four that it has as well as a Wikipedia article that is used as an external link? みんな空の下 (トーク) 21:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —みんな空の下 (トーク) 21:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —みんな空の下 (トーク) 21:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a old software company, and there are not many surviving for 40 years in an industry that only started around 60 years ago. It is clearly notable. Sources will be quite hard to find, since it's a specialist. Well worth keeping. scope_creep (talk) 22:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty years. 1980 was thirty years ago. It only seems like forty. Age is not really much of a criteria, and conversely one might say they've had thirty years to attain notability and haven't. It's true that sources must be hard to find: four links are given as references. Two are dead. One is a brief press-release type article in Dr. Dobbs. One is more a real article, at Embedded Computing Design. Both the non-dead links are mostly about product releases, not about the company. Per WP:CORP, "[A]ttention solely from... media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Herostratus (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 August 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, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Obviously needs better references, but I think it should stay. Nolelover 01:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find this all a little bizarre. Minna Sora no Shita—in future, please "make a good-faith attempt to confirm that... sources don't exist" before nominating, per WP:BEFORE. Scope creep: you argue for keeping it because you assume notability based on age but also thinks sources "will be" quite hard to find. Herostratus: you take the opposite view that since sources "must be" hard to find, that means it probably never gained notability. And Nolelover, you give no reason for your opinion. But no one bothered to check whether sources are hard to find. Well, it literally took about 20 seconds to confirm that sources are abundant. Google books search with the companies home town included as a false positive limiter and news results.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Touche... Nolelover 14:33, 2 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.