< 2 March 4 March >
Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. Though he does exist (http://www2.idrottonline.se/LivetsOrdIF-Innebandy/HerrAU/Herr/Spelartrupp2010-2011/20JohannesAhlin/), he meets the A7 criteria for speedy deletion. Favonian (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax[edit]

This article is in Swedish and vaguely outlines the biography of an intramural floorball player named Johannes Ahlin. The last paragraph reads: "In short, John Ahlin is one of the world's best fullbacks (?) in floorball, as one can see from this this Wikipedia page. One hopes that he will continue to play for Word of Life [intramural team]. I do not think many knew you had a Wikipedia page, not even you." Certainly a hoax. --Arkivarius (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2011 (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. Tone 21:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sentient PPM[edit]

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

There only appears to be one article about this product (nothing came up for me in gnews, and fairly few ghits) The article is written like an advertisement by a user who's only edits to date have been regarding this product. OSborn arfcontribs. 23:53, 3 March 2011 (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. Tone 21:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Captivating" Corey Mason[edit]

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

Contested PROD - regional "professional" wrestler of questionable notability - possibly promotional - apparent COI on article. No significant coverage from independent third party publications - Google news search brings back no returns relevant to the individual. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 17:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quickflight[edit]

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

Fails WP:BAND. No notable songs or albums, of the three albums, only one was released on a notable record label. No notable members (The only blue link member is at AFD). Sources confirm albums were released, but there's only one rs review. Lara 22:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see two albums there, suggesting compliance with WP:BAND criterion #5. The fact that Tunesmith Records doesn't seem to exist anymore doesn't mean it wasn't notable in its day (before the World Wide Web). Not sure about this one. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2011 (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. J04n(talk page) 03:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Biosemiotics[edit]

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

(Expired) PROD removed by anonymous IP without reason given. PROD reason wes "Ephemeral journal with only two published issues, no evidence that either one (or both together) made any impact. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." No evidence of notability has been added since article was prodded, hence: Delete. Crusio (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Selket that merging is not appropriate here. It's like merging the bios of two different persons because they happen to have the same name. --Crusio (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. I was going by the sentence in the article "The journal has been replaced by Biosemiotics", leading me to think that there was a predecessor-successor relationship. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not been able to find anything upon which that phrase is based. Same for the special "volumes" (probably "issues") that are mentioned. As far as I can see, what the original author wanted to say is that there was a development in the field towards publishing special issues and then a failed attempt to publish a journal, until finally Biosemiotics was established. Note that the latter is published by a well-respected academic publisher, whereas the publisher here, Nova, is controversial. --Crusio (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With all the sympathy that I have for the sentiments expressed in Wikipedia:Scholarly journal, it should be noted that this is just an essay, not a guideline. The current journal has published only two issues, which have been cited only rarely. They were published by a controversial publisher. I really think a clearer motivation to "keep" is needed than this essay. --Crusio (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, should I defer to your apparent expertise in the matter? Fotaun (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only if my arguments convince you :-) --Crusio (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2011 (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. Tone 21:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sahrawi national football team[edit]

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

Previous AfD resulted in no consensus. The article is unreferenced and gives no evidence of notability. This has nothing to do with the team not being part of FIFA or with Western Sahara not being a de jure state, which seemed to be suggested at the previous AfD. An example of a notable non-sovereign non-FIFA team would be Catalonia national football team. Stu.W UK (talk) 21:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete - A7 by Nyttend (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surviva[edit]

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

Article had an A7 speedy tag but it was removed by someone other than the article creator with no comment other than that it was "irrelevant" ([8]). I still say speedy delete as A7, but if reaching #124 on the UK Singles Chart constitutes a claim to notability (a claim which I am unable to verify as of the moment), my !vote defaults to regular delete as failing WP:MUSICBIO. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC) edited 20:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Deleted as a COPYVIO. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marchan-dising[edit]

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

Article created by the term's namesake. Only uses appear to be in the author's blog, personal website, and misspellings of "Merchandising". Issue here appears to be WP:NOT#BLOG RadioFan (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've now tagged this as a copyvio. Hairhorn (talk) 21:06, 3 March 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to make money[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a "How to" guide. PROD removed by author. (As background, author has previously had Make money donating deleted as a promotional article - admins can look and see the site it was promoting) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2011 (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 Poltergeist (film series). T. Canens (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Kane[edit]

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

Non-notable unreferenced article about film character. No verifiable, sourced material is included in the article. Description consists only of plot elements from film trilogy and WP:OR such as "Kane is the classic villain; he possesses characteristics such as psychopathy, sadism, and insatiable greed." Sottolacqua (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Article, as Reverend Henry Kane, was deleted 17 May 2009 and recreated as Henry Kane 4 October 2010. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Wikia has not yet become hazardous for articles about fiction. Reverend Henry Kane added to Horror Film Wiki on Wikia. Can you imagine wanting to delete stuff? I think it is more likely they just move on. Move onto Wikia is my advice. Anarchangel (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is high time WP made it impossible to redirect if you are not an admin, and made an extensive review of redirects. Anarchangel (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Henry Kane article was recreated inappropriately, following the deletion of the Reverend Henry Kane article. Rather than "Speedy Keep", articles of this nature are appropriately deleted under the G4 CSD criteria. This is the standard result for all sufficiently identical and unimproved articles of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, regardless of the name of the article. Regarding Reverend Henry Kane, naming guidelines do not support prefix titles of this nature, but rather call for a redirect to the precise name. Let's say we had two articles, one named Reverend Henry Kane and the other named Henry Kane. If the first article contained more content, we would actually merge the content to the Henry Kane article with less content. We would then redirect the Reverend Henry Kane article to the second. The initial redirect to Poltergeist (film series) was made by an administrator in accordance with policy and the outcome of the AFD discussion. A second (misguided) redirect was made by a new inexperienced editor. This redirect was quickly identified by a bot, which then redirected the article to Henry Kane. So, we have an administrator redirecting in compliance with policy and based on the consensus of the community, then we have a new editor attempting in good faith to restore the article to a different name, then we have a bot redirecting to the precise, appropriate name for an article of this nature, while lacking an understanding of the community consensus to redirect to Poltergeist (film series). In the end, we have another editor revert the consensus of the community, remove the article redirection, and restore an AFD template directing to a closed AFD discussion from May 2009, that resulted in the initial redirection to Poltergeist (film series). Assuming good faith, I wouldn't define any of these actions as atrocious, but a sincere attempt to follow process as understood. Cind.amuse 01:15, 7 March 2011 (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. Tone 21:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Game panel[edit]

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

No evidence that this concept is notable. A PROD with the reason "No sources and no evidence the subject meets the general notability guideline" was removed by an IP editor with no clear explanation. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, my first thought was to merge too, but when I looked at it more closely I wasn't sure there was any content worth merging. I have searched, and failed to find any evidence that the expression is in sufficiently general use to justify its inclusion in Game server or any other article. The expression does exist, but its use is largely confined to download and promotional pages for particular examples, a few forum posts asking about them, etc. If anyone can produce suitable sources indicating that the term has enough currency to justify its inclusion in another article then a merge will be fine, but I haven't seen such sources. In any case, the content of the article is really no more than a few dictionary definitions. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2011 (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 Fourth Reich. Delete and redirect; can be userfied on request.  Sandstein  08:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th Reich[edit]

AfDs for this article:
The 4th Reich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic does not meet the notability guidelines for future films, as filming has not begun. Based on my research, filming was scheduled to begin in April 2010. That has not happened, and based on the previous AFD, the director admitted, "The 4th Reich is infact in full swing with pre-production - a little delayed but still on track for a 2011 release." That was seven months ago. There has been no traction since toward a topic of enduring notability. The previous AFD had no good arguments to keep; one "keep" !vote said to "be lenient on the fellow his first time out" without citing policies or guidelines, and the other "keep" !vote was from the director himself, obviously with a conflict of interest. Userfication was recommended, and I'm fine with that approach; this topic just has no place in the mainspace right now. If filming does begin, and can demonstrate general notability through significant coverage, the article can be recreated. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:41, 3 March 2011 (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. Tone 21:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Awadh[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was: Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. The PROD was contested on the grounds that he had played pro football in Bahrain. However, according to WP:FPL, the Bahraini League is not fully pro. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Gallegos[edit]

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

University student who has been appointed as a "student regent" (a non-voting member of the board of regents) for the university which he attends. Notable to University of North Texas students, perhaps, but not to the community at large. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy close as bold redirect. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stick It (album)[edit]

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

Article already exists at Great White (album); does not present any additional information. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2011 (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. This one's a "hat trick". Per consensus, per CSD A7, and per CSD G12 as the first paragraph is a close paraphrase of http://www.nanobiotix.com/about-us/. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nanobiotix[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Phearson (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2011 (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. Tone 21:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of knife discussion forums[edit]

List of knife discussion forums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see how this list meets the notability guidelines for Lists. PROD, and Notability tags were removed. Yazan (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a new list, it has some sources. Editor only created it a few days ago.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • List was created on Feb 26. 5 days ago. Yazan (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, ok, whateverThanks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question I don't keep up much on lists of things on Wikipedia, I know they exist, but that's about it. Would it make sense to keep it then, if the forums in question had their own wikipedia entries? If that's the case then I can understand deleting it. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can read here about stand-alone lists notability requirements: WP:LISTN. Yazan (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, that's what I was looking for. Did you ever make the editor who created the list aware of that?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Editor was notified here. Yazan (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks again.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Your statement confirms to me that you know absolutely nothing about the notability of these knife discussion forums. However, I will give you a chance, so why do you feel bladeforums.com is not notable? Zabanio (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Create an article and source it. The burden is on you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are 7 print sources in the article. Three from knife-related magazines, two from knife-related books, two from books about cooking. There are others out there as well, I'm not a fan of lists on wikipedia, but could an article be written entitled "Knife-related Forums" or something similar, mentioning the forums in question and their impact on knife collecting as a hobby and even how certain forums have changed the "rules of the game" of knife collecting. For instance, some knife makers have become quite popular on forums, gaining an exposure they never would have had if they relied on the old methods of travelling to knife shows or selling at local gun shows and craft fairs? I know of several makers who were doing this the old way and when they were able to reach a wider audience via the forums, they not only received more orders, but became more like factories...hiring workers and refining production methods to meet the demand. More importantly there have been a multitude of articles the past few years pointing out this trend. There have even been articles in specialty publications telling makers and collectors how to take advantage of these forums, etc.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources provide all that context and substance for the topic, then yes, it is theoretically possible to write an article on the topic. So good luck. But while some forums may merit a mention in that hypothetical article, if sourced and relevant to a point (e.g., the first such forum, the most populous, etc.), that still wouldn't in and of itself justify a list such as this, no more than blog being notable as a concept merits a list of all blogs. postdlf (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, I'm speaking about a comprehensive article just about these types of forums in general. RecDotKnives being the oldest, bladeforums being the largest with over 100K members, UsualSuspectsNetwork the largest with regard to Custom Knives and promoter of their own Knife Show, etc. I have seen articles about individual forums (bladeforumsDOTcom for example) created and deleted in the past. To say these forums are not notable when they have been written about in books and periodicals is incorrect and I don't feel each Forum rates its own article. However, a comprehensive article about the forums in general and their impact in the worlds of knife collecting and knife making sounds like a good article to me. Then again what do I know? I have never edited a Family Guy article the entire time I've been on Wiki.:)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one is asserting that knife collecting or the knife industry in general is not notable. No one is asserting that there aren't numerous magazines and books related to knives and knife collecting. No one is asserting that online forums for knife collecting don't actually exist, but we are asserting that they are not notable. That is why there are no blue links in this article (except for the two which lead to articles on knife manufacturers, not knife discussion forums). This is a directory of purely non-notable items, which should be deleted per WP:NOTDIR. —SW— confabulate 17:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The article has been created and the section has been added. It's a pretty good article, if I may add.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this is publicly accessible anony IP number. Zabanio (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2011 (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.  Sandstein  08:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiracial American[edit]

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

There is no external documentation suggesting "multiracial American" is anything more than a terminology, which can be and is aptly covered in Multiracial#United States. The topic of Multiracial-ism is notable (which is why we have multiracial, Miscegenation, etc...), but it is not an ethnic group or a "uniform collection of people" of the United States. The only times "Multiracial American" shows up on a google search is when an individual writes about their "life" coming from a "multiracial" background (notice the quotes), or in the context of the word Multiracial American Indian. This article is already a quote farm, poorly recapitulating what most of the main articles say. The vast majority of content in this article is just scrapped from the header articles Racial and ethnic demographics of the United States and Interracial marriage in the United States, so I'm not seeing much to merge. Note that Eurasian American redirects to Eurasian (mixed ancestry), which is what this article should do. Bulldog123 14:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree, but why can't it be covered in Multiracial#United States (and the other articles) in the same way Eurasian (mixed ancestry)#United States does for Eurasian American? If you read the content, it's not different, just forked and expanded with a lot of WP:OR. Bulldog123 15:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand. How does multiracial#United States not cover all that? Are you going to argue that we need Eurasian American too because there are so many books on the subjects of individuals growing up with an Asian father/mother and White mother/father? Seems a bit... silly and overextensive. There are far less books on the subject than you're suggesting. I can only find two and both are about individuals in your google books link, and I can't find a single source that refers to "Multiracial" as an American ethnic group. If you are proposing a keep so vehemently, can you at least work on the talk page to get stuff like the infobox and mentions of "multiracial" as a uniform group of individuals removed? Bulldog123 20:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a look at that talk page discussion and it didn't really develop very far, so I'm not seeing much to respond to. I agree that multiracial is not a singular "ethnic group", obviously, at least as I would use that term, but I don't know what consequence you think that should have for the article content nor do I understand the way in which those ostensibly disagreeing with you there believed that it was an ethnic group. I might say it's a "racial classification," but beyond semantics, what's the difference? Whether it is or isn't an "ethnic group" certainly has no impact on whether the article should be deleted. The only real point I can make right now is that the topic of multiracial people in the U.S. is broader than just the census classification, so the article should not be arranged such that it appears the census classification defines it or provides a "complete count".

    One broader point: this kind of article is one of the most difficult for Wikipedia to handle, for a number of reasons: 1) race is an emotionally volatile issue; 2) most Wikipedians' interests and backgrounds lean away from the humanities/social sciences; 3) racial studies have gone through a lot of change in the past few decades that it's still contentious even for university curricula, let alone volunteer editors, to determine what's essential to the subject or what defines it. There's a germ of a decent outline in the article, so there's hope. And that the article admittedly has a long way to go is by no means grounds for deletion when there's a valid, notable topic and, at minimum, a not-awful start. postdlf (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I meant: will you work toward fixing the article on the talk page if this article is kept? A lot of times people just come to AfD, vote !keep, and the article continues to languish in its miserable state (e.g. List of Jewish actors, List of black Golden Globe winners and Massacre). I went to the talk page to do a WP:BEFORE and got almost no responses, besides a few requests that AfD is a better venue for this than the talk page... so... clearly something is not working here... The consequences are big regarding this article's "ethnic group" status. An ethnic group is defined as: a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy. This article is currently in the Template for ethnic groups, in a category for ethnic groups (Category:Ethnic groups in the United States, and maintains an ethnic group infobox (including the idiotic montage). All these things make it seem like "multiracial american" is some type of uniform group of people. If your rename idea goes through, it would definitely help improve that. However, I'd prefer if the rename did not concern "people" but the "concept". Turns out that Multiracialism is actually a word. One of its meanings is: composed of or involving multiple races [10]. So even something like Multiracialism in the United States would be better. Still, I can't see what there is to salvage from this article. It's a huge quote farm. Bulldog123 00:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've watchlisted it, and if I feel I have something to contribute to a discussion at that talk page, I will. You can feel free to ping me if you would like my input on a thread there. postdlf (talk)
  • Please, do inform everyone of what you think that "other agenda" is. Bulldog123 05:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd disagree with you on the last point per Wikipedia:ITSNOTABLE. But, in any case, the subject of being multiracial in America is notable. However, I don't believe that the subject of Multiracial Americans (as uniform group of people) is. If you have multiple reliable sources in major newspapers and multiple accredited education institutions showing otherwise, it would be helpful to list them here. Bulldog123 03:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a close call, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article is mostly just a quote farm. I don't see what parts of the article are at risk of being lost. I didn't put "Delete" in the rationale because a "merge" or "rename" could be in order. However, I don't see Mixed-race people in the United States as a verifiable topic. There are no external sources for such a "people," only for the concept of being mixed-race, which would lend itself to Multiracial#United States and possibly Multiracialism in the United States. This article isn't that though. Bulldog123 03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes; we gathered you’re not an admirer of the article given that you are the nom and creator of this AfD.

    The article is clearly not “mostly” a “quote farm”; at least not the version as I write this post. It has proper and sufficient quotes to adequately buttress a topic that is intrinsically more controversial than most. It seems a wise move by whoever was the shepherding author, who may have perceived the need to preemptively fend off allegations of wp:synth and wp:POV (criticisms you’ve been throwing about lately on the whole, broad subject of ethnic and racial classifications).

    Your arguments still don’t dissuade me from looking at this AfD any differently: it’s better to put the underweight premies in the incubator in the nursery rather than euthanize them in the maternity ward; that’s how volunteers build the project.

    And, thank you for your link to Wikipedia:Quotations, which you curiously aliased as “quote farm”. Once again, I actually read your I made it BLUE so it must be TRUE-link. It doesn’t seem to support whatever impeaching point you were alleging (other than point out how the article is handling quotations properly). Please try to avoid WP:Feigning knowledge with inapplicable links. I find that to be the Wikipedia-equivalent of what engineers sometimes do in design-review meetings, where 68.656% of statistics cited by engineers are contemporaneously fabricated to feign expertise. Greg L (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You aliased your link to the entire guideline: WP:Quotations. I assume that was your intention. Like I wrote above, Once again, I actually read your linked guideline, and once again, it doesn’t seem to support whatever impeaching point you were alleging.

    There are only two “long” (more than a paragraph) quotes, this bit from a Supreme Court ruling and this one by Tiger Woods. Moreover, American legal rulings are not copyrighted and editors are free to use quotations of any length (and I can’t think of a more apt long quotation than one from the U.S. Supreme Court in this particular subject). Taking all quotations into consideration and ignoring the References section, the article is over 84% original content, which is hardly the “quote farms” Wikipedia has suffered from in the past.

    And, true to form, you once again engaged in a personal attack by accusing an editor offering their opinion and analysis here (me) of trolling. Trolling is “disrupt[ing] the usability of Wikipedia for its editors.”. This isn’t the proper venue to elaborate in any detail, but you’ve been warned about this sort of thing before and this latest accusation is without foundation. When other editors point out something on a matter of Wikipedia business pertaining to content on the project and you disagree someone’s opinion, such as how your cited objection over “quote farm” takes the reader to the entire guideline, and that they read the guideline, and they opine that they don’t see a problem, it is not appropriate conduct on Wikipedia to falsely accuse them of disruption. M‘kay?

    From hereon on this page—and everywhere else on Wikipedia where you might land—please try to keep your comments focused on the subject at hand and do not personally attack those who disagree with you. Nor should you taunt and bait them. All that sort of behavior is prohibited and is incompatible with a collaborative writing environment. Greg L (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2011 (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) 05:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Chiefs[edit]

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

This was supposed to have been bundled with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denver Wolverines, but I neglected to do it. The rationale is the same: this is another proposed semi-pro rugby league team for which there isn't any substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources establishing notability. The only source that explicitly describes them is a blog entry that specifically says they have no firm plans to play any games or join a notable league. Cúchullain t/c 21:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cúchullain t/c 14:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I forgot to list this before; doing it now.--Cúchullain t/c 14:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as G7 - only author blanked the hoax article. Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 01:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Vose[edit]

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

Contested prod (by creator). Prod reason was: Hoax article. All the refs and external links lead to articles on Ryan Bowman and the article seems to have been copied from Bowman's with a few changes. As far as I can tell, Carlisle United has never had a "Thomas Vose" play for them. Would CSD, but it's technically not "blatant". Also findmypast.com revealed that there is person called Thomas Joseph Vose, but they were born in 1996. Jenks24 (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2011 (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. Tone 21:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian David Ellis[edit]

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

Non-notable identity, doesn't meet WP:BIO criterion Bill william comptonTalk 13:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He is in fact a rather well-known figure in philosophy of nature circles. Granted, the entry needs expansion and he's not some sort of rock star, but it is clear that Dr. Ellis is notable enough to deserve an entry. JKeck (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2011 (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. There is no consensus to delete or merge this article, and I see no compelling policy argument that would require doing so in the absence of consensus. Any undue weight and BLP issues can be addressed by editing the article.  Sandstein  08:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange[edit]

Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Undue amount of scrutiny for a currently non-notable event. Recommend deletion and move to Wikipedia:Article Incubator instead for now in case it eventually is notable. Avanu (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be more clear on what I mean by 'notable'. Yes, it has recieved a LOT of coverage in the media, but ultimately what is it we are covering in this article? A man was accused of sexual indiscretion.

How notable is that really? Is he the first well-known person to be accused of something like that?

Is there something particularly notable about how the case has proceeded thus far? Assange claimed the US was out to get him, yet there has been no evidence of that in this article.

Ultimately what we have here is a rather commonplace event (so far), and really most other people in Wikipedia don't get this much attention. This is why it is currently not truly notable, and rather than delete it all entirely, that is why I recommend above that it be put in the Wikipedia:Article Incubator. -- Avanu (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this event have "enduring historical significance"? (see Wikipedia:EVENT#Inclusion_criteria). Does it have "widespread (national or international) impact"? (I would say probably not, since it is simply about Assange, and if it does, why isn't that covered in the article?).

"Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, 'shock' news, stories lacking lasting value such as 'water cooler stories,' and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance."

What I am asking above is 'How does this truly have significance?' I understand that a lot of people assume that notability is somehow automatic after there is a bit of news coverage in big media outlets, but really that ISN'T the standard. -- Avanu (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're ignoring the fact that this "event" (a strange word to use for ongoing proceedings; it's a legal process unfolding, not a car crash) centers on a notable person who is receiving significant international attention right now because of his connection to WikiLeaks. You could view the extradition proceedings as a split-off subtopic of Julian Assange if that makes it easier on you, similar to how O. J. Simpson murder case and O. J. Simpson robbery case were "split off" of O.J. Simpson. If Assange were not notable, then it's not likely his extradition would get much attention at all, from the news or Wikipedia. postdlf (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's really my point, Postdlf. Yes, this is a legal process, but really there's little actual substance here. So instead, we have this excruciating play-by-play of legal minutiae and press coverage that really doesn't have a point. The posts below who say offhandedly "This meets WP:GNG" ... I'm not sure they are seeing the point I'm asking about. I'm asking where the substance is. What makes this really worth having in Wikipedia. Sure it has gotten press, but what is the real story here, and can we focus on that instead of the pointless... and if we can't or there really isn't a story, then lets just prune the thing out. -- Avanu (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Economist, Time magazine, The BBC and about 300 other news organizations have articles on the proceedings according to Google News. They are reliable sources, not tabloids. We don't have to have a reason why they are covering the legal proceedings, but when they do that defines notability in Wikipedia. Maybe you can show some respect and withdraw your nomination at this point, and Monty845, please don't feed the trolls, they just keep come back for more, your legal editing skills are in great need and the more you reason with Monty845 the less time is spent where you are needed. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't implying that the New York Times and others are tabloids. One thing these reliable sources have covered (almost to a fault in some cases) is the timeline and how suspicious some of it seems. Like Monty845 suggested, there is a lot of reading between the lines. I'm not averse to changing my opinion, but it is with the help of editors like Monty that *we* come to consensus. Naming people 'trolls' is not. If there have been any comments of mine that seemed uncivil in the least, I apologize; there was no intent to trivialize other editors, and I would hope you might show the same sense of decorum. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2011 (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. Tone 21:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UELSports[edit]

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

This article is about a single department of a university. There is nothing to demonstrate that it has received sufficient independent coverage for inclusion per WP:ORG. The only independent coverage concerns the use of the department by the American Olympic team in 2012, but I do not think this is sufficient for inclusion. If it was we would end up with articles about every university sports dept in the UK. SmartSE (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2011 (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. Tone 21:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kisorsa[edit]

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

There is no village called "Kisorsa" in Hungary. Anyone can check in the Detailed Gazetteer of the Republic of Hungary, 2010 − Hungarian Central Statistical Office: it does not know about it, which means it does not exist. The Gazetteer includes all localities (so an existing village with a village hall is certainly included), even all "parts of localities" (outskirts etc.). See also its talk page. (I already deleted a bulk of self-contradicting information from the article.) Antissimo (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 03:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McTimoney College of Chiropractic[edit]

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

This is an article about a company that provides training for quacks. Four sources are cited. One is the company's own site, one is 404, one is no longer available (and was about the University of Wales validating bogus degrees, not about this company; McTimoney is not mentioned in the broadcast), one does not mention the name of this company.

It is fun to poke these fools with a stick - the Bad Science posse replaced McTimoney's picture with a rubber duck on one site, which was amusing while it lasted - but I do not really see much evidence that anybody outside of the McTimoney "association" thinks McTimoney is at all important. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've corrected the 404 link and removed the iPlayer reference - hadn't realised it was unavailable and yes it'd be better as a reference for the University of Wales article.
I've not created the article to poke fun or mock anyone, can only apologies if that's the impression I've given. I'm completely aware of the rubber duck thing. I'm not sure how the importance of McTimoney outside of the field of Chiropractic is critical - if that's a consideration here then ought to be seriously reviewing pages listed at Category:Chiropractic_schools. I think it's worth of an article since:
  • The MCA represents a measurable faction of Chiropractors in the UK, sizable enough to cause plenty of friction with other Chiropractors [1].
  • It's one of the few places in the UK offering science degrees in a pseudoscience.
Pishmishy (talk) 20:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And are they primarily about this company? I doubt it. That's not to dispute that McTimoney is a notable form of quackery (even other chiropractors have spoken out against it) but that doesn't mean that this company, as covered in this thinly sourced article, is notable by association. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 4 March 2011 (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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New York Cosmos (2010)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
New York Cosmos (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/((subst:SUBPAGENAME))|View AfD]]  • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails both WP:V and WP:OR. No mainstream publications directly support the assertion that this club is a separate entity. This article had originally posted a "founding date" which could not be verified anywhere and which was subsequently removed. The club itself, ie the current trademark holders, acknowledge only one unified historic timeline, and no publications have disputed this. Wikipedia requires that we post only information that can be verified, not our own interpretations of facts, even if we believe them to be true. If most publications seem to accept this club as the same entity, it is the policy of Wikipedia not to create a new perspective unique to Wikipedia. Since the nature of a separate article is suspect, it's inclusion is also redundant to the first article, which should therefore cover all current material referring to the Cosmos as a club. This article should be deleted. unak1978 09:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I love this re-write of history that is going on. All the articles referenced on the New York Cosmos (2010) mention that the original club "folded" or "cease operations" in 1985. A club "folding" or "ceasing operations" does not exist. The Cosmos team in extistence today is not the same team that operated in 1985. It is a new club that purchased the name and logo of the old club.KitHutch (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentI understand your position and respect it, but I think that it's important that you address how this article satisfies Wikipedia policy. It exists primarily to avoid such disagreements. You're merely stating an opinion. The idea that a "folded" or "ceased operations" club can be reformed under the same history already has precedent on this site long before the NY Cosmos came along, but that is not the topic of this discussion. Bottom line is everything on this site must be verified and it's important that you address whether or not this article satisfies WP:V. I've tried to bring this up numerous times before in discussion. unak1978 20:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' - You haven't stated how the article fails Wikipedia policy. Even if this club is legally the same entity from the original club, if you have a reliable source for that, just add it to this article. And add a link and a small section to the article on the old Cosmos noting that as well. Rlendog (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It was tried before, but there were certain editors who were reverting any compromise changes from being made to the article. Perhaps I took a drastic route, but it seemed the only manner in which to relay my point to a broader pool of editors. I also posted the article for Request for Comment in both the sports and business categories, but very few editors actually monitor the RFC discussions. There were no outside responses. To clarify, although they haven't chosen to comment in this particular discussion, there were editors who agreed with my general argument, so I believe that a compromise was warranted. However short of the same notice I gave to everyone involved in the original discussion, I've made no other attempts to introduce them to this particular discussion in order to avoid biased canvassing. unak1978 06:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis is not entirely true. Before the issue of North American soccer clubs came to pass, there was a consensus in all sports. And it was that Wikipedia would remain neutral and allow the publications, media, and teams themselves to dictate status. If you can find an instance outside of N. American soccer where we have also deemed this in the same light, then common sense would apply. However that is not the case. It seems that what we have here is a special exemption is being made just for these specific instances outside of the norm. Wikipedia once had a standard by which these things were determined, however we are arbitrarily changing it to satisfy this specific category of teams and that's wrong in my opinion. In that instance we lose our neutrality and this reference site becomes something else entirely. Now we are creating the precendent that we can initiate a standard from Wikipedia without that standard having been initiated elsewhere which I find troubling.
Bottom line the question that has to be answered here is do we want Wikipedia to be acurrate and consistent, or a hodgepodge of different sets of rules for different sets of information. In every other section of Wikipedia, science, health, or business articles, we have a standard and stick to it bc that's the best way in which to ensure accuracy. But here we feel it's ok to accept a change in how we view a certain standard and do not even choose to revisit the other articles which set that standard to ensure uniformity. If this is the case, if this is how we want to standardize how we view such articles, then for those same purposes we need to go back and change all of the articles that rest under, not just similar, but the exact same circumstances. That goes for ACF Fiorentina, the Portland Beavers baseball club, basically any other team that we have judged for years under a certain standard that we now seem to deem it ok to change out of the blue. Otherwise we need a specific reason why this is different. Yes there are no hard-bound rules to Wiki editing, but if we don't have reasonable standards then this site becomes an unreliable mish-mash of information. There needs to be a standard, period. And if we are going to decide that this is our standard then be ready to go and change the rest of the articles for the sake of uniformity and consistency. This is why I feel so strongly about this. Am I wrong to believe that these should be things that we take into consideration when we edit here on Wikipedia? unak1978 02:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is my final point on this discussion. Notability isn't the argument. Under either argument, the name NY Cosmos is still notable. That's not being called into question. Verifiability of the information, or rather the manner in which it's being presented in this article is. I can accept the argument that keeping the timelines separate serves a functional purpose and I supported certain compromises that were proposed in the merge discussion. In the past we have split articles, but in none of those cases does the information presented in those articles contradict the information officially presented by the team itself. Nothing that's been published in any article directly contradicts the date that the Cosmos themselves recognize.
Taking the example of the Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals. Despite the fact that the two articles are separated, the National's founding date is still listed as 1969, a date that it shares with the Montreal Expos yet also the officially recognized date by the club as MLB allows their clubs to determine this on their own. I ask this; had the club chosen another date, eg the founding date of the original Nationals (which MLB left on the table), would we have had the right to present another founding date on this site? With MK Dons the club willingly relinquished all trophies and claims on the original history of Wimbledon F.C.. No contradiction there. In another example, the Cleveland Browns were essentially a folded franchise for almost 4 seasons when Art Modell took the franchise to Baltimore. Had he chosen, he could have changed the name to the Ravens, yet still kept all of the requisite history of the Browns. He gave that history and the name back to the city of Cleveland and we recognized that and so did the NFL. When the Tennessee Titans moved from Houston Bud Adams chose to deny the city of Houston the history and the naming rights and kept them with his team. I would also note that we do not have separate articles for those two teams despite the similar circumstances with the Nationals/Expos situation. When the Oklahoma City Thunder left Seattle they agreed to leave the history and records in Seattle. There are separate articles, but in the infobox it makes note of the fact that the current Sonics are located in Oklahoma and shows thier timeline. However, if/when a new club is located in Seattle by the NBA, they will have claim on the official history and records, even if that event takes place 25 years from now. If such a situation comes to pass will we ignore, the Sonic's claim on that history, which will also be backed by the NBA?
But this particular article originally added a founding date of this year while willfully ignoring the club's own valid claim on the rest of it's history. So again, while it may be hold encyclopaedic value to separate the information, to present the information in such a manner that contradicts the way that it's presented in publication is not. To present our own version of this club's establishment date in direct contradiction to their official founding date cannot possibly avoid WP:OR. So if we're going to decide that this article remains, are we also deciding that we as Wikipedia editors also have to leeway to basically present the club's history on the basis on terms that we decide? There is no conflicting claim on the club's history. They own all of the trophies and all of the records. Most sports league's allow a teams ownership in such a position to lay claim to those records. On what basis can we contradict that here? We can present the fact that the club did fold, and they have not operated for 25 years. But I think that we have always drawn the line at actively contradicting the club in question. Because aren't we also supposed to be concerned with WP:NPOV? Are we arbitrators of public dispute? Is it our role to place emphasis where we decide, or do we merely reflect information from our sources as a concise reference resource? If we ignore our policy altogether without compromise, then what is the point of having them in the first place? I believe that we have a responsibility to reflect all aspects of this club's status rather than dismissing it out of hand. Unless you can present an example that sets an alternate precedent, then this article should allude to that claim even if they're kept separate. Listing the date of the relaunch can be held as accurate if you also list the club's own established timeline for neutrality purposes. This has been done before in the examples that I have laid out above. Under those circumstances I wouldn't argue that this article should be kept. unak1978 20:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Edit While, the Oklahoma City Thunder agreed to leave the name and colors of the Sonics in Seattle, they did not relinquish the history and championships as the Baltimore Ravens did. But this once again re-establishes ownership prerogative in another case. Had the Browns taken 25 years to establish another team they would have still had the legitimate claim to thier titles and history. Just wanted to correct that bit of information there unak1978 06:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like people are preferring separate pages for the sake of clarity as there is a jarring difference between old and new. Would a separate article noting the current club claims the history of the older club suffice? --Blackbox77 (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that I've ever been opposed to such a compromise, so long as the club's history and the refounding date are given equal weight in a similar manner to how it's handled in the Oklahoma City/Seattle pages. Thank you. If such a compromise can be agreed to then I rescind my nomination. unak1978 06:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As this new club wasn't actually founded when the original was, I'm hesitant to say the first founding date is equal to its "refounding." Whatever ends up being in the end result, a clear distinction needs to be made between what history the new Cosmos claim for themselves and what events transpired to create this new organization. In the end, I'm sure middle ground will be found. --Blackbox77 (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same thing could be said about the Cleveland Browns. They are not even the same team, the franchise was essentially an expansion franchise with no history, yet they claim the original club's history by virtue of Art Modell rescinding it to a future franchise. They were out of business for four years. Had it been twenty I'm certain that we would still not be denying thier claim to that history. A case can be made that the Cosmos claim to that history is stronger than the Browns' since the original Browns are essentially the Baltimore Ravens. Noone is confused by this history. We make note of these facts yet still lend full credence to the club's official history. I'm happy with a compromise, and the circumstances of the club's history are inevitably going to be included in the article. The fact that the article is made separate from it's parent article should lend a clear enough distinction. I just want to see that a sincere effort at a real compromise is actually made this time around. Any compromise should be in line with prior precedent and eliminate any hint of bias. unak1978 07:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens situation is completely unrelated to this issue. The city of Cleveland never lost its NFL franchise. The NFL put the Cleveland franchise on reserve and promised it would resume play once a stadium was built and Art Modell was awarded an expansion franchise in Baltimore. In the case of the Cosmos there was no promise of a return. It wasn't even a possibility until a few months ago. Their team died, their competitor teams died and their whole league died. GONE. There was no league left to keep a franchise alive. Thank you for bringing up the Washington Nationals as they are a perfect example of why these pages should remain split. The Nationals was a franchise founded in 1969 as the Montreal Expos yet they also claim a history that goes back further than their founding to 1905 and belongs to 2 other MLB franchises Minnesota TwinsTexas Rangers.Washington Nationals: Since 1969 or 1905?. Similarly, the Cincinnati Reds were founded in 1882 yet claim a history dating back to 1869, part of which belongs to the Atlanta Braves. Like the Nationals and Reds, this new group claims a market heritage dating back to 1971 but New York Cosmos LLC was founded in 2010 as an effort to gain the 20th franchise in Major League Soccer. That's was this article is about! Cmjc80 (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you cannot recognise a disputed claim to a history that is owned by another team. Fortunately there is no other soccer team claiming the Cosmos history since that history is precisely what they purchased. There's also the fact that their definition is undoubtedly legally correct. The idea that it was only the existence of the NFL that ensured that Cleveland kept their history is incomplete. In the end it was Art Modell's decision. It's your opinion that the existence of the league is required, but in a legal sense the Cosmos are the exact same entity. If they claim the same history, then it is only through a subjective set of prerequisites that we are setting right here on Wikipedia that can deny them that. unak1978 03:44, 10 March 2011 (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:V controls here: we can't possibly source details about a historical character to what is obviously fiction. T. Canens (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mei Zhu[edit]

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

Molding of verifiable (that Liu Chang had a Persian concubine nicknamed Mei Zhu)(Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ten Kingdoms (十國春秋), vol. 61) with unverifiable/fictional material (citations to a novel (宋代宮闡史, History of the Palace Secrets of the Song Dynasty — which, despite its title containing "history," is clearly historical fiction rather than an actual historical work)). The verifiable parts of the content may make her notable, but I think it's a close call and that ultimately she was not notable; the current article itself is not salvageable because of its mixing of factual and fictional material, I believe. (The fictional material is not itself notable, unlike, for example, the Romance of the Three Kingdoms or the Journey to the West, in my opinion.) I will admit that it's not a clear-cut call, but I still believe the action to take is delete. (Those who are interested in discussing about this, please let me know if a translation of the Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ten Kingdoms passage would be necessary or helpful to your opinion; if it would, I would be happy to translate it.) --Nlu (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2011 (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. T. Canens (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Museum of Broken Memories[edit]

The Museum of Broken Memories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:N, there's one source from JayIsGames on the game, but as I've argued previously on User:DustFormsWords talk page, I do not think it holds up to WP:IRS: "JayIsGames is a blog - I'm sure it's the major news source for people interested in casual games, but popularity alone does not mean it's a reliable source. It's certainly NOT a mainstream news source - it's still a blog, albeit a high-traffic one. It's run by a man without any education in journalism or publishing, and I would guess the majority of the reviewers likewise lack any formal education in journalism. We also know nothing of their editorial policies. Do we have any well-established reliable sources covering them in detail? Not that I can find." Filibusti (talk) 08:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to these reviews from RS's. I can't find any. Also, please stop trying to make this a matter of me, the discussion is on whether the article is notable or not. Filibusti (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain which sources, when implemented into the article, will allow The Museum of Broken Memories to pass the notability guidelines. Goodvac (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. influential (in its field),
  2. used as an example in teaching,
  3. often referenced (reviews, walk-throughs, parodied, etc), or
  4. historically significant.
The sources discussed above don't appear to establish any of these requirements. They might serve to establish the author/artist's notability, but WP:INHERIT. Speed8ump (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, those are not 'requirements', since they are not exclusive. As with all such lists, an article that meets -any- of those criteria is acceptable. Secondly nobody seems to get that the criteria for deletion is and always will be WP:DEL. Criteria for computer/video game article content, which applies mostly to the talk page, is at WP:VG/GL Anarchangel (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The proposal for discussion is actually focused on the lack of reliable sources, rather than secondary criteria. An article may not meet the secondary criteria, but still meet notability through the general notability guidelines. That said, the notability of software is a bit different from that of video games. You can view the current proposal and participate in the discussion here. Cind.amuse 22:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please list the sources you believe establish notability. Goodvac (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • the two sources from justadventure, and I think jayisgames is a RS in this context due to the editorial oversight. And while your arguments about justadventure have merit, it seems to also be a reliable source (if one that needs a spellcheck). Hobit (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does it say that Jay Is Games has editorial oversight? Goodvac (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me put it another way. On the 1st of January 2008 that interview states "I'm John Bardinelli (JohnB), a freelance writer who stumbled into video game journalism about five years ago." His latest post on JiG is today: [28], he's still there. At what point is this man supposed to get a seal of approval as an expert on indie games? Who's supposed to come along and bestow that on him? There has to be a point where the site's content is reliable enough to cover its own area, within which it is a major site. This is not a BLP, this is not a technical or academic area, this is not an area where more commercial sites or printed magazines cover in anything like the same depth. Its usage does not damage WP, but refusing it as a source because it doesn't pass between some hazy goalposts denies WP content, which is another matter. Someoneanother 22:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, dat. The IGN network also has very poor coverage of early vid games, which indicates they do not do research, because there is a relatively tiny number of early games to cover. Therefore it is also likely they are getting their information from the devs. Anarchangel (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2011 (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. T. Canens (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Kyratzes[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO, there's one ref (JayIsGames) which is ARGUABLY an WP:RS (although I'd disagree), but it only treats his game, not him, i.e., it does not go into non-trivial detail of his person. The rest of the links go to his website or content created by him on other websites (i.e., Youtube). Filibusti (talk) 08:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those are not reliable sources, the others do not go into non-trivial detail of Kyratzes. In fact, those mentions are all extremely trivial. Filibusti (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How did you verify their reliability? Did you check the reliable sources Wikipedia page for video games, located here? Or did you merely assume that they were not reliable? The Guardian specifically included him in a showcase of independent developers; by the nature of the article, this demonstrates notability - inclusion in such an article from The Guardian, of all sources, is not trivial whatsoever. The Just Adventure interview (Just Adventure is a reliable source, just to let you know) is obviously non-trivial. Escapist Magazine, another reliable source, makes specific note of a comment that he made on video games. Uncommon for a non-notable person to be mentioned in that context. Just Adventure, again, mentions him, discussing his development style and the sort. Did you even read the links or attempt to verify their reliability? If you are going to so easily dismiss such effort, then I would not recommend that you participate in any improvement of anything related to independent video game development. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of his works, The Museum of Broken Memories, has also been nominated for deletion. Dream Focus 01:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • GNG clearly states that there should be multiple RS on the subject looking at the links in this thread there is one.
  • The one RS is the guardian for being part of a competition not even for winning it.
  • in the guardian article a claim is made that is completely unsubstantiated (there are no primary or non-RS to back this claim) and that is that he is a "polymath". Polymath would be easy to verify and for a profile of such an individual who designed games see Demis Hassabis. This would mean that the article has not undergone the fact checking required that is what is needed for a RS. Without that line it is only on the basis of notability ofthe games that could give him notability.
  • The video games is a high-profile area. Many games make the main news. While project video games lacks criteria for biographies this would not currently pass even if they did.
  • The normal criteria for an author or boardgame designer include that notable awards have been awarded for the book or games. This is lacking here.
  • while the wikileaks game may warrant a passing reference in a wikileaks article, this is not the first game themed on a news event. Such games for the financial crisis made the news.
  • The sources indicate that he was unable to charge for a game. There were over 1 million games produced for the ZX spectrum. Clearly writing a game is not enough for a profile.

While notability is not dependent upon time, I cannot see sufficient coverage to show significant note in the field nor any individual accomplishment of note. Even the primary sources seem very amateur for someone working in game design. The future may allow for notability but this clearly has not yet been managed. Tetron76 (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to respond to each point.
  1. Every single link I provided is considered a reliable source. What makes MSNBC, a hugely well-known web site, not reliable?
  2. That is a strong mis-characterization of notability. An article need not POSITIVE coverage, merely coverage period. It wouldn't hurt his notability if he won, but it doesn't hurt it that he lost.
  3. If you wish to discuss the deeper argument that video game web sites have poor criteria for inclusion, discuss it on WP:VG. You can't use your own POV to denounce video game web sites as viable sources.
  4. To require that he won an award is an arbitrary criteria. What if he was called the worst developer ever by many reliable sources, but not given an award? Logically, according to the arbitrary rule of an award given to a notable individual, he is not notable.
  5. Games made for the financial crisis were not the first games themed on a news event. Such games were made for school shootings. But there have been games made for news events before that. Is the only notable game based on a news event the first one in the history of video games?
  6. That last point doesn't make any sense and has nothing to do with notability and everything to do with asserting that a video game developer needs to distribute their games through a publisher to possibly be notable.
As is, the problem isn't lack of reliable sources, but the perception that video game web sites cannot assert notability and that indie video game developers have extra threshold. Notability requires that a sourced be covered in multiple reliable sources in a non-trivial sense. At what point do we extend bias against video game people to say that video game people are inherently less notable than people in film? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
while the sites can provide reliable sources several of the links that you provided are already dead, ie no mention of the subject. My point that hasn't been answered by the links is what makes him notable over any other independent game designer. The only statement I saw on him rather than his game was in the guardian but since there is no evidence that he is a polymath, I would argue that this statement should be discounted.
My point about no VG project criterria is that it is then the assumption that he should meet the GNG. Now I didn't try to find all of the broken links you made but from the ones that are left, there was nothing other than the games themselves that could make him notable. For me the games don't seem exceptionally novel or innovative so he doesn't appear unique from a design perspective. This only leaves one possible criteria for notability and this is for the games themselves being so notable that he warrants an article as well as the game.
It may be that WP:CREEP has been happening for a while but this would not pass the Articles for creation standards on the current evidence.Tetron76 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not one single link that I provided is dead. Game Set Watch's WikiLeaks article is still up, both of Just Adventure's articles are still up, The Guardian's coverage of notable indie developers is still up, MSNBC's WikiLeaks article is still up, and The Escapist's use of his opinion for their article is still up. To say that even one of these links is irrelevant to the subject is a flat-out lie, or at best, an entirely misinformed statement. Wikipedia requires that we establish notability by non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. I'd love to know why fulfilling this does not make him more notable than "any" indie developer (there are likely thousands of indie video game developers that have no coverage, so it's fair to say that he is more notable simply be common sense). And am I to understand that a reliable source is not enough to verify information? By your logic, if The Guardian makes a statement on any subject that isn't one that everyone else makes, The Guardian can never be used. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Is he a polymath? Who knows - but more importantly, who cares, when calling him a polymath is acceptable for The Guardian's link? You seem to think that he has to be a visionary of independent video game development. Do you propose that we delete Uwe Boll for being an uninspired film director? And explain to me why an indie video game developer should not be notable for his works. Shigeru Miyamoto is not notable for biking, gardening, or cooking - he is notable for the video games that he makes. He could be the most bland, uninspired, and outright mediocre video game developer, and he would be as notable as he is now if he had all of this coverage. Mention on Wikipedia requires verifiable coverage of a subject, not quality of a subject. To cite WP:CREEP when you've made weird attempts to bypass policies like WP:V, and attempting to denounce sources as unreliable while clearly not actually knowing if this is true, is entirely ironic. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shigeru Miyamoto notability can be clearly evidenced with numerous awards... I was never questioning if he had done the actions claimed in the sources merely that they did not make him notable MTG with fairly loose criteria don't accept winning the world championships counts as notable.
If his actions were non-notable, then there would not be non-trivial coverage of him by reliable sources - which is far more important than whatever notability criteria you think exists. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If he was prominently featured in German RS there may well be a genuine case but he doesn't have a german wikipedia page. But having now tracked through www.google.de as well as googling all of the games there is very little on-line evidence and it is certainly more than 5 minutes searching even to find the above refernces. The first page download links have very low stats for games of notes. While the game with a wikipage may have a case for novelty reading some fo the non-RS comments the number of hits on the blogs giving major coverage are very very low. Other references on the page are coming from a person that he shares a blog - it would be better to use primary sources.
The general google profile is very weak for someone who is notable - try google images for example. There are pages which should not be anywhere in google page rank if he was well known as a designer. His games seem to lack the numbers I would expect too. Creation of a page should wait for note to be established such as through an award or major coverage I don't see why deletion should be in a different category.Tetron76 (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of a German Wikipedia page is not relevant to this discussion. Google is not relevant to this discussion. We needn't look at unreliable sources to verify information, and your argument is dependent on them, while we have provided several sources that discuss him to a significant degree - with not one of them showing any degree of unreliability. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are we assuming bad faith? Are you accusing IndieGamesGermany of being a liar? What you are doing is attempting to put an exceedingly high criteria of doubt on the existence of this. Please provide any policy that requires that an editor must provide online documentation of existence. Again, I will ask why The Guardian suddenly has stopped being major coverage. And MSNBC. And the German gaming magazine (which, suffice it to say, does not require online evidence that the article exists). Tell the hundreds of featured articles that rely on print sources that they have to prove through online means that their print sources mention the subject article - I'm sure that they would love to explain that they needn't do so. Your argument seems to be based around trying to devalue otherwise quality sources by attempting to establish that indie developers need to have stronger references than other developers. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you appear to lack objectivity on this subject. But I have now done several hours of searching using the games and the authors name which is made easy by it being unique. If it was not for the guradian article it would be clearcut to delete. The content of the article is important more than someones name appearing and this is the point you appear to missing.
It is possible that he is on the cusp of becoming notable but at the time of the article creation there was no evidence to support this. And it is not correct to keep a page because the sources might be coming... This is not a case of "presumed" sources the only match on the games developer sites was basically a one line response to a game advert from 2001. Some sites are editable by anyone and have very little content.
I admit that I don't have experience of games recently but the downloads from sites that quote statistics don't have any of his games in the top 4000 freeware games with less than 1% of total downloads. Very few sites have profiles on him. There is little information on the games to let someone who did know the game set it apart from other games.
My comment about the german article was to do with not having details it is difficult to pass a judgement.
But I have friends with better online status in terms of u-tube hits,twitter and I am finding it difficult to find even implicit evidence that until he wins an award or a game makes a list, a respect person in the industry comments on him that he is as notable as the other people in the german game designer category.Tetron76 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just like if it weren't for the hundreds of references in Batman, the character's article would be deleted. That's faulty logic - this isn't a discussion of things that did not happen. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:11, 10 March 2011 (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. T. Canens (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rauxa[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This is a marketing firm with a very tenuous claim to notability. There is some claim to notability in the article, so I guess it doesn't strictly qualify for speedy deletion: in 2010 they were #179 on the list of top US advertising agencies and #35 (out of 50) on the list of top US Hispanic-American agencies, both rankings by Ad Age DataCenter (I have no idea if this is a reliable source or not). Furthermore, the company's president is listed as one of "30 direct marketers under 30" (not a list of top marketers, simply thirty marketers who are not yet 30 years old) by dmnews.com. I maintain that these claims are not sufficient to prove notability per WP:NCORP. bonadea contributions talk 07:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThe Advertising agency category is composed of a myriad of Agencies of varying Sizes many of which likely have even less notability, for example Doremus & Co.. In 2010 Ernst & Young listed their CEO as a semi-finalist for entrepreneur of the year http://www.ey.com.br/US/en/About-us/Entrepreneur-Of-The-Year/OrangeDesert_2010_Semifinalists and the company is continually referenced for their insight into how in Social media integrates with DM by leading marketing publications such as http://www.btobonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100201/FREE/100209975/1409 as well as their integration of social media in Hispanic communication http://www.hispanicmpr.com/resources/articles/reshaping-hispanic-marketing-through-social-media/ Seyoda (talk) 07:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Seyoda. Unfortunately, there are certain policies on Wikipedia which need to be upheld in matters such as these. For a subject to be notable enough on Wikipedia that it merits its own article, it must have, in addition to other things, significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Unfortunately, as I already said and others did above, nobody has been able to find such sources yet. In reply to your comment: (1) A subject must be notable in its own right; notability cannot be inherited - therefore just because the agency might be the bigger part of another agency which is just about notable enough, isn't by itself for inclusion. (2) This is per WP:NOTINHERITED again. Just because the CEO might be notable enough, that does not mean that the company itself is, necessarily. It might merit a mention in the article about the CEO, however (if the CEO is indeed notable). (3) Unfortunately those references you cite are do not help establish notability because they are press releases, and therefore not independent of the subject. Hope this clarifies things. You might also want to check out WP:ORG and obviously WP:N. Thanks. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 19:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jay - http://www.btobonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100201/FREE/100209975/1409 and http://www.hispanicmpr.com/resources/articles/reshaping-hispanic-marketing-through-social-media/ are both marketing publications (non-pr) posts that directly highlight Rauxa's work in Social Media also the ey.com post is from Ernst & Young a very well respected audit firm, there are no PR items that are being leveraged as refs. Rauxa's contribution to PR and Hispanic Marketing has alos been covered in DM News which is another Direct Marketing publication http://www.dmnews.com/marketers-aim-for-authenticity/article/168129/ 06:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seyoda (talk • contribs)

I'm really sorry, Seyoda, but I'm afraid none of the information you kindly provided substantiates this company's notability. Something Must have had significant secondary source coverage in independent, reliable sources. I admit that I made a mistake in saying that [35] and [36] were press releases, however, all they are is advice/insight (very useful, don't get me wrong) into some marketing aspects, etc, by employees of the company (so is [37]). They don't, however, cover the company itself, and do not (not that they should) talk about the company's significance. The reason I had said that they were press releases was because I assumed by looking straight away at the authors who were employees, that they were. The point is that even if those articles were not press releases, and did cover the subject significantly, they still, unfortunately, would not prove notability because such sources have to be independent of the subject. Yes, the ey.com may well be independent etc, but I do not think merely inclusion in a list counts as significant coverage. If the company really is notable, significant references in independent, reliable, secondary sources will be around. Thanks. Jay Σεβαστόςdiscuss 07:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Falesco[edit]

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

Non-notable WP:WINERY WP:ADVERT with little to no available reliable resources to expand the article beyond the orphan micro-stub it has been for 3+ years. Previously prodded almost 2 years ago with the same notability concern and while the creator removed the prod, the article is still in the same sorry shape simply because there is no sources to make a worthwhile article. AgneCheese/Wine 06:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems this can be developed into a reasonable article. --Bduke (Discussion) 09:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To close my argument to keep, here is a book reference by wine critic Robert M. Parker:

Has Google broken down where the editors who argue for deleting this article live? The winery is notable - improve this article by normal editing. Cullen328 (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do note that literally tens of thousands of wine reviews are posted on the internet each year and in many cases they are just as notable as restaurant reviews from Yelp. Robert Parker's books include hundreds of separate reviews and not a single one of those hundreds of wineries are notable by mere virtue of being reviewed by Robert Parker. Being reviewed, even by a notable reviewer, doesn't impart notability any more than a notable newspaper reviewing a local hot dog vendor would imparts notability on that hot dog vendor. The key issue here is WP:SIGCOV and casual 2-3 lines mentions in articles or wine reviews/tasting note doesn't pass the WP:GNG requirement of having "sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Now think about this, what type of "normal editing" for encyclopedic content can we really extract from such trivial mentions in the sources provided you above without WP:OR?
  • That the non-notable writer at the Las Vegas Review-Journal thinks that "Ricardo Cotarella is perhaps one of the greatest winemakers"? (Great WP:POV for an WP:ADVERT or WP:WINEGUIDE entry but not necessarily useful for an encyclopedia entry.)
  • Maybe from the two lines of the 3000+ word Wine Enthusist article we can add that they make Merlot and Merlot-blends?
  • We can pull from the couple of lines in the Washington Times article that the location of the winery is about 50 miles north of Rome.
  • From the other Washington Times cite we can remind our readers about "The 2000 rendition of this stunning value" (Is this really the kind of WP:ADVERT tidbit that Wikipedia readers comes here looking to find?)
  • From the Kansas City time "ref" we can also point our readers not to miss out on this winery because the "Vitiano is a remarkable bottle"( Now what is the point of an encyclopedia article if we don't tell custome..err I mean readers, what great wines they should be drinking!)
  • But we would certainly be remiss if we didn't include the Robert Parker tasting note on "a wine of remarkable richness and complexity".
I apologize for the sarcasm but your comment about "Google breaking down" was terribly unfair. I certainly DID looked at these and other online tasting notes/wine reviews but found them lacking in WP:SIGCOV and providing any real, tangible material that would be needed to write an encyclopedic article that didn't come across as a WP:POV saturated WP:ADVERT or WP:WINEGUIDE entry. We actually need something worthwhile to work with and, I'm sorry, but asking us to write an encyclopedic entry with tasting notes about "stunning values" and "remarkable richness and complexity" just doesn't cut it. We need reliable sources that actually provide content and not sales brochure material. Keep in mind that not everything that pops up on Google is useful. AgneCheese/Wine 04:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some additional sources that I think are reliable and help demonstrate Falesco's notability:
"Riccardo Cotarella is Italy's most sought-after consulting winemaker, a man who has brought modern thinking and technology to dozens of Italian producers, including Feudi di San Gregorio in Campania and Lamborghini Campoleone in Umbria. Worldwide, he has more than 50 winery clients. Yet the wines Cotarella and his brother Renzo (general manager at Marchesi Antinori in Tuscany) take the most pride in are their own, made under the Falesco label from grapes grown in the family's vineyards in the Umbria and Lazio regions of central Italy. If you haven't discovered Falesco, or if you think Italian vino is too tight and/or thin for your taste, give the Cotarellas' bottlings a try."
"Riccardo Cotarella not only makes his winning Falesco wines, he consults with more than 30 other Italian wineries....A little research on Cotarella reveals many, many awards, praise from wine writer Robert Parker Jr. as one of the most influential wine personalities in the world, and descriptions of him as a pioneer in the Italian wine industry. His expertise is in every aspect of the business from growing techniques, to technological innovations, to winemaking to marketing."
It is up to you, Agne, whether or not to withdraw the nomination. I say, let's keep the article and move on. Cullen328 (talk) 02:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I'm still highly skeptical on Falesco, I'm starting to think that there maybe enough sources to write an article on Riccardo Cotarella which would include a subsection on Falesco. When you trim out the POV, WP:ADVERT, sales brochure tasting notes from the source listed, the most tangible, meat on the bones material seem to relate to the winemaker rather than the winery. AgneCheese/Wine 17:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've begun expanding the article. More to come. Cullen328 (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2011 (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) 05:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Sharp (baseball)[edit]

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

Potentially non-notable minor league baseball player and manager. Sure, he led a team to a championship, but I'm not 100% sure that merits an article. Alex (talk) 03:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 05:16, 3 March 2011 (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. T. Canens (talk) 08:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hyde (Kayaker)[edit]

Henry Hyde (Kayaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Also note redirect: Henry H-Bomb Hyde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod; fails WP:ATHLETE. StAnselm (talk) 04:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. http://canoekayak.com/features/stories/high-water-highlights-fibark/
  2. http://www.lyonsoutdoorgames.com/events/slalomresults.html
  3. http://www.chieftain.com/news/local/article_502a71ca-7cf0-11df-babe-001cc4c002e0.html
  4. http://jacksonkayak.com/blog/2009/07/10/sage-update/
  5. http://www.kayak-adventures.org/documents/AGN2009Results.pdf
  6. http://www.paddlinglife.net/article.php?id=438
  7. http://www.kayakinstruction.org/Kayak_Instruction/Newsletter/Entries/2009/4/25_Rapid_Advancement,_April_2009.html
  8. http://www.whitewaterracing.org/JrTeamTrialsPress.htm
  9. http://www.redriverracing.org/Henry_Hyde.html
  10. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Henry-H-Bomb-Hyde/260450684499?v=wall
  11. http://salidacitizen.com/2010/06/world-national-champs-shine-at-fibark-freestyle-comp/
  12. http://www.themountainmail.com/main.asp?SectionID=5&SubSectionID=5&ArticleID=19467
  13. http://www.usawildwater.com/news/2008/2008_FIBArk_Downriver.pdf
  14. http://www.fibark.net/results-2010/2010-Downriver-Race-All.pdf
  15. http://usack.org/news/front_features
  16. http://itsgametimesomewhere.com/2010/10/03/everything-i-know-about-canoes-kayaks-i-learned-at-the-national-slalom-championships/
  17. http://www.whitewaterslalom.us/gateway-project.html
  18. http://www.whitewaterslalom.us/2010_Regional_Teams.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.35.13.251 (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
#16 certainly looks self-published. StAnselm (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I meant "self-published" in the sense of WP:SELFPUB. Agreed that it doesn't pass WP:BLPSPS. --Goobergunch|? 17:56, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Until the category of notability in sports for a whitewater category is settled. See: Wikipedia:Notability (sports) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddrokayaker (talk • contribs) 05:22, 5 March 2011 (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 boldly redirected to Moises Salinas; appears to be same person. I will request revision deletion to deal with the BLP issues. Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moy Salinas[edit]

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

This seems to be a non-notable subject- the only claim to notability is that he is a sex offender. E♴ (talk) 04:39, 3 March 2011 (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. T. Canens (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respirocyte[edit]

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

Speculation; non notable. Fails to meet any of the criteria for Science Notability:

  1. Textbook science: Respirocytes are hypothetical; essentially science fiction
  2. Widely cited. The current wikipedia article fails to cite any scholarly article on the real technology. Some speculatory articles are cited, but these are far from scholarly research articles. A google scholar search gets a mere 195 hits on "respirocyte", many of which are only a passing mention of the idea (and this result appears to contain a significant amount of duplicate hits)
  3. Press and Fiction. Per the notability guidelines, if the subject has received extensive press or fiction coverage, the article should make note of the fact. It has not done so, so it's unclear whether this applies or not.
  4. Historical interest. The first mention of respirocytes in scholarly articles seems to have been in 1996 (Respirocytes: high performance artificial nanotechnology red blood cell; RA Freitas, NanoTechnology Magazine, 1996). As such, this is not yet a technology which is old enough to qualify as historically interesting.
  5. Popular belief. The term respirocyte is not generally known, and is likely used only with nanotechnology and/or futurist circles.

Additionally, the summary of the article is undercited and may contain original research (particularly the summary, which pulls very specific design points out of nowhere).

As such, this article should be deleted, or improved to satisfy at least one notability criterion. bd_ (talk) 04:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many articles on things which only exist in science fiction and/or hypothetical on Wikipedia. There are many articles on places or people that do not have many citations but do possess scientific, technical or historical value. If something must be historically interesting before it can be an article, almost all of the articles tagged as recent, current or ongoing events would not qualify. Wikipedia would never have 3.5+ million articles if we depended upon popular belief or widespread knowledge. The article is obviously a stub, and as such is expected to be under-cited -- you yourself found a third source and failed to include it in the article. I really don't think there is a solid case for deletion -- if the article hasn't been improved in a year and Wikipedia is running out of server space, then fine, but as for now keep it. TeamZissou (talk) 05:28, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Mentions on CNN and in a book by Ray Kurzweil, as referenced on the page, should establish sufficient notoriety. Jcobb (talk) 08:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google search for the term "Respirocyte" returns more than 8,000 results, all of which refer to the hypothetical device described herein. That's notability. As for historical interest, fifteen years (see the note above) strikes me as strong evidence indeed that there has been sustained scientific interest in the respirocyte. --James Somers 08:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep for the reason given above. FunkyDuffy (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whole article is based on one book and one fleeting mention in a magazine article. If the book the idea comes from is notable enough to have its own entry, this should be a section in that entry. GideonF (talk) 12:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As 15 years in nano-technology history, is a long time, and thus is historically significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.4.236.2 (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Science fiction in a vanishingly small niche— clear-cut failure to meet Wikipedia:Notability_(science)#Criteria
  1. Not mentioned in textbooks, let alone "regularly"
  2. Not widely cited, rather, very scarcely cited
  3. No extensive press coverage
  4. Hasn't met any of the above historically
  5. Is not and has not been "believed to be true by a significant part of the general population" __ Just plain Bill (talk) 03:24, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change to no opinion: That list of criteria still seems like a good idea, even if it came from a failed guideline. The books Whpq links demonstrate some notability. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2011 (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. BigDom talk 17:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Neff (artist)[edit]

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS if substance. Fails WP:BIO and WP:ARTIST. ttonyb (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Zamora[edit]

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

I was forwarded an email request from the subject, he wishes for the article to be deleted. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Summary_deletion.2C_salting.2C_and_courtesy_blanking states that while a person who is not well known can request for deletion, it cannot be deleted outright because there is no negative information. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upon a second opinion, the sources were looked at and....it was not good. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although the article is well written it doesn't appear to have sufficient sources from multiple reliable sources to establish that the subject of the article passes WP:GNG. A google news search brings up a few mentions, but none of them have the subject of this article as the primary subject of the news story. Furthermore, a quick glance of what is found online does not appear to provide sufficient results for the subject of this article to pass WP:MUSICBIO. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with RCLC, too much data coming from a few links? I don't think it's possible. why are there online player links here? --Eaglestorm (talk) 07:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete aside from his having requested it, it does lack enough sources to be verifiable or prove notability.--Obsidi♠nSoul 07:00, 9 March 2011 (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. Nobody apart from the nominator supports deletion, so the "no consensus" refers to the matter whether the content should be merged to the class article or retained separately. There are no directly applicable guidelines; WP:MILUNIT is an essay. I recommend that this matter be discussed at the guideline level, not in an AfD.  Sandstein  08:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

USS SC-42[edit]

USS SC-42 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We have many articles all about individual frigates of sub-chaser classes. While it is obvious that individual capital ships (battleships, aircraft carriers, even "pocket battleships" aka battlecruisers) are inherently notable, are smaller ships which may have been made by the thousands and have not had any honors, notable historical events or notable crewmen? Obviously some smaller navy boats will be notable but I do not think notability is inherent. The articles mentioned are all essentially no more than copy-pasts of one another because as in any navy many boats of this class were, as it seems, mostly unremarkable in their own right. Would support a merge to SC-1 class or similar, but as that's a redlink I thought I'd leave it for AFD and an administrator to decide if notability exists here. HominidMachinae (talk) 02:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of requesting deletion?[edit]

Well, this deletion suggestion is a pretty depressing development. I just don't understand the reasoning behind it, which seems to go against the idea that Wikipedia is for everyone and is a place where anyone can contrbute what they have information on and are interested in.

As a naval history buff, I am interested in the history of U.S. Navy ships. I find that Wikipedia has good coverage of modern ships and of historical ships of the most popular wars (the Civil War and World War II), but fairly poor coverage of ships in other conflicts. For the past couple of years I have been working on getting World War I's ships better coverage. The overlooked section patrol boats that guarded the country's coasts now mostly have their own articles, all duly accepted by the Wikiships and the World War I projects. I recently began work on the submarine chasers, which Wikipedia has left essentially uncovered. My research and its expression on Wikipedia is taking a two-prong track: (1) establish the basic stub articles for each subchaser so that I can fill in the details I am finding elsehwere in an organized fashion after I organize them and (2) researching other details of the actions of the individual submarine chasers and then including them in the stubs. Over time, I will beef up many of these articles; I expect to start that part of the effort this month. So I'd like my work left alone while I do it.

In the meantime, the stubs already have value. The articles are hardly cut-and-paste efforts from a single source. Unlike many Wikipedia ship articles which are cut-and-pastes from the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships and nothing more, these articles combine information in several sources and available in no one source. To some extent as stubs they will be cut-and-pastes from another because they obviously have much in common and it is a waste of time to try to find infinite ways to say the same thing over and over, but they already vary with different photographs and dates of commissioning and sale or of other fates. No one source outside of Wikipedia has this all in one place, and no one class article could provide the particular information and detail of individual ship articles. The additional research I mentioned above is going to cause them to vary from one another more and more, but there is no need to hold off on creating the stub prior to getting every bit of research done; the stub is accurate, although by definition incomplete, and will become more complete over time. Rather than suggest a need for deletion, stubs invite further contribution. I will contribute more to them soon myself as I sort out the careers of individual subchasers.

As for an "SC-1 class" article? I am already planning one, and may write it this weekend. It will cover much about the design of the class and a very general summarize of operations that will neatly compliment the individual articles - which will provide detail the class article cannot. The class and individual ships articles will be linked by the ship class template I created.

Many ships with lesser combat histories than the World War I submarine chasers are covered in Wikipedia, as are many which are more obscure. So I don't see a reason to disqualify them. Some of us are interested in the smaller watercraft that do much of the fighting in wars, and I do not think anyone should presume to judge which of them merits inclusion - especially when many modern ships and craft with trivial histories are welcomed into Wikipedia without question (not to mention Wikipedia's happy inclusion of such trivial subjects as video games, fictional spaceships, minor entertainers of passing celebrity, and characters in computer simulations).

The purpose of Wikipedia is to be a collaborative effort to get information before the world in one easy-to-use place. Maybe someone will have more information on these subchasers that they can add after the articles are created. Maybe someone will research an ancestor who served aboard one of these ships, find the relevant article, and then add information or photos. Unless Wikipedia's servers are too full, I don't see a reason to delete articles which improve Wikipedia's coverage of underreported eras and issues and make them accessible to Wikipedia users in a way specialist Web sites do not. Maybe World War I is not a popular enough era? Maybe ships with numbers instead of names are just less interesting somehow?

Instead of looking for ways to limit the detail of Wikipedia's coverage of naval affairs, we should be looking to expand it. I have taken on this part of expanding it as a solo effort. I ask for no help from anyone else, but I would like to avoid having anyone try to truncate or destroy it. Over the next few weeks or months I plan to have a decent history in Wikipedia for each of the many subchasers that fought in World War I, sourced, with photos as available. To those who say "Why bother?" I can only reply "Why not?" Doing so will only help, not harm, Wikipedia and its users. Someone might look up the subchaser their ancestor served on - and then contribute information or photos once Wikipedia lets them find out more. That's the beauty of Wikipedia; deletion will destroy that possibility.

Let's put the idea of deleting subchaser articles to rest and let them develop over time. Anyone who finds them uninteresting should simply go do something else and leave them alone - not advocate their deletion. Mdnavman (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]

I should clarify that I'm not trying to limit Wikipedia, and I will be the first to thank you for your excellent contributions to our coverage of an area that is often neglected in favor of pop culture. However I am concerned that a multitude of articles on mostly-identical members of the same class would be better served by being merged into a list or into the article on the class. As it stands every article must meet notability guidelines, and as as class of ships the class is undoubtedly notable. But multiple third-party sources are unlikely to exist for every member of the class. HominidMachinae (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having done some searching around and looking for details I have come to the conclusion that it should be merged into a list. I also am persuaded that there are too many in this particular class to support an individual article on each, also as per EyeSerene regarding MilHist ships. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a class article now - i.e. SC-1 class submarine chaser, but with 442 SC-1 class boats completed, if it was decided to merge the detailes of the boats where we couldn't find enough data to support a stand-alone article, it would be best to merge them to a series of lists.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, it wasn't an analogy - an analogy would have compared the two things. It was a point, there are many articles which do need deleting, such as hamlets of 30 people, and articles which need merging - yet I never see any of those up for deletion. People wanting to clean up should try looking in areas where we have 16,000 articles in one project alone, many of which are the same thing from 4 different ethnicities. Chaosdruid (talk) 12:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my note to AJHingston above, no comparison was intended for the "keep". Chaosdruid (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add that that's pretty much my point. Not much can be said about these individually, and as per WP:N Multiple sources are generally expected, and sources are expected to provide "significant coverage." That's my concern, An entry in a book that only confirms the basic data of all ships have is akin to a catalog entry: it confirms existence but not notability. Lacking any individual coverage that explains why this particular SC is notable, it is not. All articles must meet GNG. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to clarify that that is where I draw the line for presumption of automatic notability. Of course there are smaller ships that are notable, but it is inconceivable that a battleship would NOT be notable. Obviously there are smaller ships that are notable, there are notable PT boats, notable frigates, notable ships of every size, but not all smaller ships would be notable. I dispute that ships over a certain size are automatically notable. No article gets a pass from GNG, which says multiple sources with significant coverage. HominidMachinae (talk) 09:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may dispute it, but it is the generally held opinion of WP:SHIPS members, as set out in our project scope page. Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much stating that "all ships larger than xxx are notable", but that they are presumed notable if they have been commissioned by a navy. It's essentially an "innocent until proven guilty" guideline, wherein it must be proven that the article fails GNG based on significant coverage. Since US Navy ships great and small are catalogued and given significant coverage in any number of valid references (books, catalogues, the Naval Vessel Register, DANFS, and others), you'd have a hard time proving that there is insufficient coverage of this particular vessel, or probably the vast majority of them. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have I found one of the Navy's smallest commissioned "ships" - USS Betty Jane I (ID-3458)? GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen smaller commissioned ships, some less than 20 feet... the launch carried by an Iowa class battleship is larger than that! bahamut0013wordsdeeds 13:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you are in a minority or not, Afd works on strength of argument and policy, as determined by the closing admin. That said, I think this has drawn attention to an issue around notability of warships which needs to be addressed. We may yet discover that there are some out there that are not article-worthy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2011 (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. Tone 21:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Popup Chinese[edit]

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

Promotional article for non-notable podcast. The references are mostly promotional, or to minor mentions in blogs and newsletters. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 03:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 02:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, in order for an article to be kept, it must be demonstrated that it is actually possible to improve the sources, rather than just saying, "improve the sources". —SW— chat 16:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're one to talk. "I'm not sure this passes WP:GNG". You're not even sure, let alone bothering to demonstrate it, and yet you vote delete and badger others about their vote. F me, deletionists just keep wanting to have it easier. Anarchangel (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is really that there are two kinds of English language news sources in China - Crap state-controlled ones and blogs. The blogs have higher editorial standards, are more respected, and are taken more seriously, but Wikipedia's rules mean that these are not usable as sources. City Weekend, Danwei and The Beijinger will all have made many references to the Sinica podcast, but unless they make the minor editorial decision to present their articles as part of an "online magazine," etc instead of "blog entries" it's going to be impossible to have decent articles about China on Wiki. Bienfuxia (talk) 09:52, 5 March 2011 (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 Davis v. Federal Election Commission. T. Canens (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Davis (industrialist)[edit]

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

I have serious questions about this individuals' notability. There is nothing about his career as an "industrialist" that meets WP:GNG beyond any reasonable doubt. His political career fails WP:POLITICIAN as a frequent losing candidate. His political party isn't notable; the link redirects to a section on this article. He was the subject of a case tried by the SCOTUS, which might make him notable, but I don't think it's enough. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now as there seems to be an adequate number of sources on his current prospects, which make significant note of his previous runs. In the event I am overruled, consider redirecting to Davis v. Federal Election Commission and merging some of the more pertinent biographical information into a section on that page. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2011 (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) 05:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basdeo Mangru[edit]

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

Associate professor at a not-terribly-important university. Has written a few books, but they don't seem like they've had a major impact. H-index of 4 according to google scholar. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2011 (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) 05:44, 5 March 2011 (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. Michig's suggestion of a redirect, however, should be seriously considered. T. Canens (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ric deGroot[edit]

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

Not notable. The one source cited lists his name as a participant in an album, but that is all. Web searches produce mainly Wikipedia mirrors, together with a minority of other sources which are not reliable, not independent, or both, such as the web site of a band he belonged to, a forum, IMDb, YouTube, a fan site, etc. The claim to fame in the article is that he was a member of two bands without Wikipedia articles and two with completely unsourced articles. I have not been able to find any significant evidence of notability of any of those bands. A PROD was contested with an edit summary saying "meets WP:BAND # 6", but I can find no evidence to support the statement. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (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) 05:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hip Hop Love[edit]

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

Second nomination. No input on first, so thought I'd put it out there again. Album offers no reliable, no reviews, just Allmusic and Amazon listings/descpriptions. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2011 (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) 05:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Sheldon[edit]

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

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Last played in the indy leagues, is 28 years old and will very likely never reach the major leagues. Doesn't merit an article. Alex (talk) 04:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2011 (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) 05:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thea Van Seijen (Singer)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete, Thea Van Seijen is indeed first European female artists affiliated with The Wu-Tang Clan and mentored by RZA. reference is on wiki on all the songs she has been featured on as well as being listed under Wu-tang affiliates also check out her bio on her site www.theavanseijen.com, http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8ebar_thea-van-seijen-baby-boy_music, http://wu-international.com/misc_albums/Interviews/TheaVanSeijen%20Interview.htm,

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2011 (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) 05:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification[edit]

International Journal for Uncertainty Quantification (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

publication of questionable notability, article created by blatantly COI account. WuhWuzDat 18:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, "Honest" would have meant spelling his companies name forwards. Spelling it backwards is "blatant". WuhWuzDat 07:37, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on, give the guy a break, he's a newbie after all. I think that the comments on his talk page show his good faith. After all, what would be simpler than creating a username that had no relation at all to the company/journals and leave all this behind him and happily continue editing with a (now undetectable) COI. Instead, he wants to change his username and retain his current history (so that his connection with this company will remain clear even after he gets a new username). I also maintain that for a newbie, his articles were really rather neutral. The journal articles were not spammy at all but gave a neutral description of the journals, all that needed to be done was format them according to WP:MOS. Even the article on Begell House was rather neutral, the only thing one might consider spammy being the long lists of journals/books in it (and that is something most newbie -and even a lot of more experienced editors- would do). --Crusio (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal for Multiscale Computational Engineering[edit]

International Journal for Multiscale Computational Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

publication of questionable notability, article created by blatantly COI account. WuhWuzDat 18:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Begell House[edit]

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

publisher of questionable notability, article created by blatantly COI account. WuhWuzDat 18:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment At least 2 of those journals have sizeable impact factors and at least one of them is indexed in MEDLINE, so their notability is not in doubt. --Crusio (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reviews in Immunology[edit]

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

publication of questionable notability, article created by blatantly COI account. WuhWuzDat 18:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's not that difficult to expand this kind of articles, as I have just done for this journal. If the individual journals are notable, then I don't think merging is warranted. --Crusio (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For every journal listed by ISI in the Journal Citation Reports, there are at least 2 or 3 that are not listed. So "being halfway up a long list" should be more like "being in the top third" or something like that. At the WikiProject Academic Journals, inclusion in the JCR is generally taken as a sure sign of notability, as it is not easy at all to get into that list to start with. --Crusio (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2011 (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. T. Canens (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Biosemiotics (journal)[edit]

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

publication of questionable notability, unreferenced WuhWuzDat 18:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The journal is Abstracted/Indexed in: Academic OneFile, Expanded Academic, Google Scholar, OCLC, SCOPUS, Summon by Serial Solutions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.43.160.126 (talk • contribs)

Source added. --Dr Oldekop (talk) 20:45, 3 March 2011 (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. BigDom talk 17:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering[edit]

Critical Reviews in Biomedical Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

publication of questionable notability, unreferenced WuhWuzDat 18:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2011 (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) 05:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skin (Japanese band)[edit]

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

Group composed of notable Japanese musicians, but the group itself has only performed together once four years ago, never toured, never released anything, and has done nothing since. Therefore, I feel that this is a more a case of inherited notability due to individual members rather than "being composed of notable musicians"; which seems to be invoked with groups that actually release things and perform. This group barely meets criteria one of WP:BAND, and fails all others except the aforementioned notable musicians. All that being said, one performance that wasn't even in their home country, with no releases, no tour, and no set dates re: actually doing anything even when asked in repeated interviews is very much "temporary notability". It's exactly the same as say, Jimmy Page performing on tour with Paul Gilbert - it has happened, and they are notable musicians, but we don't have an entire article on the collaboration, nor should we. The prod was contested due to continued interest in the band being shown in interviews, but the context of those sources amounts to throwaway statements like "yes, we'd like to do something at some point, when we're not too busy with our other groups," in the context of larger-scale interviews, not a solid statement of intent. MSJapan (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Even you seem address that they meet point #6 as far notability goes. Not the best article, but it does pass, and does have some sources supporting it... Sergecross73 msg me 18:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It seems more comparable to Tapeworm (band), which was worked into a good article...Sergecross73 msg me 18:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm ok with deleting this article - they were going do something, then X Japan reformed instead. However, is there a place part of it could be merged with? I'd think it would be better as a short paragraph in another article, but I can't think of the best place to put it. Denaar (talk) 23:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2011 (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. T. Canens (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeckie[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related page because it is a virtual copy of this one:

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

YouTube puppet act of questionable notabilty - appears to be promotional. No significant coverage in independent sources - provided refs are either primary sources, trivial mentions, or user-submitted stories. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2011 (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) 05:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Federici[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Also, I'm not sure if directing a few music videos meets any of our notability requirements. J04n(talk page) 22:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply: The awards normally deemed significant enough to make a film that notable involve Academy Awards, Golden Globes, Emmys and BAFTAs.  Ravenswing  22:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Terrific, and if you can wrangle a consensus to back the premise that a music video winning these decidedly lesser awards is enough to make everyone associated with it notable by that fact alone, more power to you.  Ravenswing  07:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Unless I'm mistaken, the song won the awards not the video. J04n(talk page) 17:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • And since the article remains, as it has been for six years, unimproved beyond its original stub, it's obvious that whichever someone was digging, he found no more of a scrap of a reliable source discussing the subject in "significant detail" than existed before.  Ravenswing  12:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you're able to see that the deletion of a micro-stub is not the end of the world. There are many who can't understand that concept. Good luck with re-creating the article. —SW— prattle 16:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A new article with a different focus is a better option. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:56, 4 March 2011 (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 REDIRECTED. postdlf (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of DreamWorks animation projects[edit]

List of DreamWorks animation projects (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been merged with DreamWorks Animation Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 22:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Article now redirects to DreamWorks Animation as per previous discussion - really no need for AfD here. Bienfuxia (talk) 06:40, 3 March 2011 (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) 05:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Ferguson (British actor)[edit]

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

Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. Searched googlenews and googlebooks combing his name with both 'Heartbeat' and 'Emmerdale' without success. He is not mentioned on the page Heartbeat (UK TV series) and on List of past Emmerdale characters it is revealed that he is one of two actors to play a minor character. J04n(talk page) 23:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yukon Gear & Axle[edit]

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

No indication of notability. Page appears to be advertising/spam and all references go to Yukon Gear's online shopping site. Additionally, several users (Kid Yukon, 400four, Boqle, anons) have been adding links to Yukon Gear's shopping site to locking differential, limited slip differential, Ford F-150, etc. Bdc101 (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2011 (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. Ok, I think we have had enough heel face turns to punch this one. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Methods in Ecology and Evolution[edit]

Methods in Ecology and Evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article dePRODded by anonymous IP with reason "de-PROD since it isn't clear that notability hasn't been established", but without any article improvement. PROD reason was: New journal, too young to be notable yet, article creation premature. Not indexed anywhere, no third-party sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Crusio (talk) 10:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association. T. Canens (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger[edit]

Video Software Dealers Association v. Schwarzenegger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is already an article on the case (see here). There is no reason to merge as the content of the proposed deleted one is already on the main article. There is no functional distinction in the cases both articles talk about. Lord Roem (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emperor of Destruction[edit]

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

Questionable notability unsupported by any reliable third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2011 (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 Transformers technology#Stasis lock. T. Canens (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stasis Lock[edit]

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

A non notable aspect of the Transformers franchise without reliable sources to support this article Dwanyewest (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2011 (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 Disease#Stages. Target of the redirect may be further sorted out at RfD, if desired. T. Canens (talk) 07:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flareup[edit]

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

Another weak Transformers article with its notability supported by weak sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion may be to Redirect to Disease#Stages since Flare-up already does and this seems to be a likely typo.--76.66.189.59 (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I'd !vote for either delete or redirect according to 76.66.189.59. NotARealWord (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2011 (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. T. Canens (talk) 07:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Celia Bourihane[edit]

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

No indication of notability, only source is some kind of kids sports team website, subject was born in 1995 looks like a kid making a page about themselves --Ashershow1talk•contribs 00:41, 3 March 2011 (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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gerardus Wesling[edit]

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

No sources, no indication of notability, minor athlete who was barely a footnote to an Olympic event that happened a hundred years ago. --Ashershow1talk•contribs 00:26, 3 March 2011 (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 - but the debate appeared to be leaning towards a keep per WP:HEY. NO harm to keep for a few months to see what happens next to this kid's career. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Akari Saho[edit]

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

Delete - No evidence of notability, no references, only external link is to a personal userpage. Subject was born in 1995, appears to be a kid who made a page about herself. --Ashershow1talk•contribs 00:49, 3 March 2011 (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 British Humanist Association. Under WP:NACD, closure seems appropriate as there is a fair consensus. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolution Revolution[edit]

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

This article contains little information about the initiative itself, and reads much more like an advert for the British Humanist Association. Half the content is testimonials and opinions which don't really belong on Wikipedia at all. The initiative could get a mention in the appropriate section of the British Humanist Association's page, but the article should be deleted. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ [48]
More