Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 21

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 20 November 22 November >

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus. There is no agreement here on whether this article is merited or not, with disagreement over whether it meets the main notability guideline. This does not prejudice a discussion continuing on the talk page on whether a merge or redirect to somewhere is appropriate. Davewild (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon High Desert Grotto

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

Local caving organization under the auspices of the National Speleological Society. Per WP:ORG, [i]ndividual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources that extend beyond the organization's local area. Only sources appear to be local in scope and no evidence of meeting WP:ORG on a standalone basis is provided. --Kinu t/c 23:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete article was speedied before and then re-created with no improvement. -Drdisque (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a merge possible? Like to National Speleological Society or [[List of National Speleological Society local? Miami33139 (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be honest, I'm not quite sure what content would be meaningful and relevant in the Society article. --Kinu t/c 00:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why would you want to merge a national organization with a one of smaller caliber? The Oregon High Desert Grotto page has the references to back up it's influences beyond its local area. The local area as defined here, is Central Oregon (comprising Deschutes, Crook, and Jefferson counties). The references clearly show influence beyond these counties, as far away as southwest Oregon in Josephine County (near the California border), as well as inside the California border at Lava Beds National Monument. The significance of this is clearly posted in the references too. State Leaders recognized the importance of the grotto's work, why not wikipedia? The significance of the grotto's work consists of conservation and restoration efforts for the geologic, archaeological, ecological, biological resources of the caves. The grotto also has participated with cave inventory surveys with the Vale BLM district (as referenced). It must be significant if the government BLM agency organized it with the grotto. And by the way, the article has been improved beyond the original speedy deletion. By far. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It looks like it is getting there, but not quite yet so holding off on !voting. The current problem is the vast majority of the sources are from the Oregon Underground publication, which since it is this entity's publication, confers no notability. You need more sources from other media outlets such as the Bend paper used, OPB, The Oregonian, New York Times, etc. Aboutmovies (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two outside sources is better than none. It's a lot more than some existing wikipedia pages have today, yet they remain. I will work on getting more publications sourcing the efforts of the grotto. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two maybe better than none, but that is not a rationale for keeping anything. In general, concerning your otherstuffexists argument, see the Wikipedia:Other stuff exists essay on why we generally don't go with that argument. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Understood. But the solid references are there, with two new ones just added. I would just like to see Wikipedia be consistent when proposing to delete articles. The significance of the grotto, in my eyes, has been demonstrated by the sources. Again, I will try to get more up later, but errands call at the moment. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Added, several more references. Some from the Department of State Lands site, another from Tillamook County, and another from The Underground Express, based out of Portland, Oregon. How many more references do I need? It's starting to look messy! Leitmotiv (talk) 03:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You actually need more. And you need ones that do not provide merely trivial coverage, as outlined in WP:NOTE. Saying the government consulted with this group, and seriously that's it, is not substantial coverage of this topic. Further, cite #13 (Tillamook) is just a re-print of #12 (state library), which means it only counts as one source and should be consolidated, and this is the consulting part/trivial coverage source. The Source Weekly is another trivial coverage source, as the article barely mentions the group as it is focused on Matt Skeels. The bats one is better, but most of the article is focusing on the caves/bats, not the group. Lastly, government sources generally do not provide notability, as per WP:NOTE, you need secondary sources, and government documents are usually primary sources. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Matt Skeels is a member and representative of the grotto. That's what the article is about. You might want to cross reference some of these articles and realize they all tie in. These articles say more than the government consulting with the group. If you don't know this, you haven't been reading the articles. Surveying, drafting of maps, and management help are clearly mentioned in several. So, seriously, there's more. #13 notes the importance of the grotto beyond the influence of it's local area (which was a point of contention before), so it may be a reprint, but it's a reprint showing the importance on a broader state level. So it stands beside the other with some overlap. The Source Weekly article is about Skeels and his work on those caves. Quickly in the article it states "Skeels was recently commissioned, along with another local caver, by the Department of State Lands to survey a series of caves." No consulting mention, but commissioned. And further in the article, it reveals that Skeels has "duties as chairman of the local caving club, The Oregon High Desert Grotto." And even later, "Skeels knows the cave well, which once served as part of a private landfill on the property. It's one of the roughly dozen that he surveyed on behalf of Department of States Lands in southeast Bend on a parcel known as Section 11." Again, Skeels is a part of the Oregon High Desert Grotto. His work was done as a member in conjunction with the Department of State Lands. To make it more clear... the group, (the grotto in this case), is made up of individuals such as Skeels. The Source Weekly is putting a face to the grotto by mentioning Skeels. Take a look at the bigger picture. The bats article is good. Since consulting appears to be not significant in your case, this article again mentions the surveying and mapping of the caves, which ties in with the other reference previously noted. And per WP:NOTE it states that secondary sources also include "reports by government agencies." You should check the notes at the bottom of that page, where I quoted from. Government agencies are referenced on the grotto page, and are clearly noted on WP:NOTE that they are a part of secondary sources, and not the opposite as you are suggesting. Are you stating that when State Leaders recognize the group and award them for it, that it's not notable? And finally, is there a sweet spot for the amount of references that are needed? I have many secondary sources, some from newspapers, some from multiple government agencies, one from Oregon Caves National Monument, one from U.S. Forest Service, another from The Underground Express, etc. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Frankly, whatever. I've been trying to help you, as you may have noticed I didn't just !vote delete. As to Skeels, really? Huh, yea, I certainly didn't get that from that article or all the other articles he is the freakin author of for the clubs publication I mentioned above about not being independent. So, yes, I read the stupid article and know he is the club chairman. But that doesn't matter, as notability is not inhereited. As in a group can be notable, or a member can be notable, or even both, but they are not dependent upon each other. If the author of the piece focuses on one and not the other, then the one is getting the notability, not the other. Saying the author is using Keels as a face is your interpretation, and I disagree. Having written/significantly improved a crap load of articles on organizations and companies, I have read a lot of articles covering people related to companies/organizations, and this falls into covering the person category as the author does not go into extensive details on the group (such as when the group was founded, where do they meet), and the first mention of the group by name is the third paragraph, after to large pictures. So, to me, that article is about Keels, with trivial coverage of the group (and really it is about protecting the caves).
                • With the government sources part, as I said, generally. As in, not always. Here, one of your sources is the minutes of a public meeting. That is not a government report in the aspect that NOTE is talking about. If you use the secondary sources link, it specifically mentions transcripts of public hearings in the primary category. Now, there are other government sources provided that are secondary, but they provide little if any notability. The state land board one is a press release, and those generally are not taken to confer much notability, even though here the release is from the government and not the group. You see, the government has an interest in publicizing their awards and such, so we give this type of coverage little thought, as it is not really an indication of notability by Wikipedia's standards. Further, the source is really redundant since you have this article, which does confer some notability (as covered in a previous post). See below for a complete breakdown of each source as of this version.
                • #1: No mention of this group - no notability conferred
                • #2: trivial coverage - little notability conferred
                • #3-6: Published by the group, thus not independent - no notability conferred
                • #7: An 8:42 long video and I don't recall hearing any mention of the group. If there is, please provide the time point. - no notability conferred
                • #8: News article on the award - provides some good notability
                • #9: Article on Keels, and trivial coverage on the group - little notability conferred
                • #10: Government press release - little notability conferred
                • #11: public meeting transcript - primary source and no notability conferred
                • #12: Government plan - only coverage is mention of Grotto's consulting services. The full coverage of this group in that source is: "Consulted with the Oregon High Desert Grotto of the National Speleological Society on cave locations and protection measures." This is trivial coverage. Not because "all they did was consulting", no, no, no. It's freaking trivial coverage because that's all the source covers on the group. The group could have built 1000s Space Needles and 1 million battleships, and if that is all a source says they did, then that coverage is trivial. All I am talking about here is coverage in sources, not any great accomplishments. If the accomplishments are great, secondary sources will cover them. - little notability conferred
                • #13: 206 page PDF. Nope, didn't read the whole thing. But one, this is another government public meeting transcript, and the pages cited are a copy of source #12. So, no notability conferred whatsoever. Otherwise I could find a source and upload it to 5000 websites and then cite each (the actual citation used in the article should be to the actual source contained within the public record, the plan on the tract, with a note it is contained within the larger source). - no notability conferred
                • #14: Mentioned in my last post - some notability.
                • #15: Part of the public comment period and as such is a primary source (See administrative law and the APA) - no notability conferred
                • #16: More comments - same as #15 as to no notability conferred
                • #17-19: Published by the group, thus not independent - no notability conferred
                • #20: Editorial by the group's chairman - no notability conferred
                • #21-22: Published by the group, thus not independent - no notability conferred
                • #23: safety item. Search for grotto or Oregon comes up with zero instances. - no notability conferred
                • #24-25: Published by the group, thus not independent - no notability conferred
                • #26: Press release and trivial coverage at that - no notability conferred
                • #27-28: Published by the group, thus not independent - no notability conferred
                • #29: Gov. tour brochure First, trivial coverage of the group, second that coverage was co-written by a group member, thus not independent. - no notability conferred
                • So, the grand total comes to: 29 sources, and 23 of those provide no notability. 4 provide little. One with a good amount, one with some. Thus delete. On a side note to whoever started the use of bullet points in this discussion, we use : to indent on talk pages, not *. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Bullets! Boutmovies, The Underground Express (#22, #25) is not published by the Oregon High Desert Grotto. Where you got this idea, I have no clue. But it reaffirms my belief that you could perhaps be biased on this issue or possibly not doing your homework. One of the reasons this page was up for deletion in the first place was the original lack of sources noting the grotto's influence beyond it's local area. That's why several of the sources are there, including #13. Sure it's a copy, but it must have been copied for important use outside of our local area of influence which you seem to be glossing over. The other main point this article was up for deletion was the lack of notable sources. Since then more have been added. You have stated 4 sources are notable. Four, not zero. But I think it's more. The Oregon High Desert Grotto is clearly mentioned as being the associated body with Skeels in these articles, if not the main topic. Also, #29 is not written by a group member, but Les Moscoso of the U.S. Forest Service and like all interviews with publications, Marchington was contacted for clarification. You might be confusing matters with the contact provided at the end of the article. If you cross reference source # 24 p. 5 you will note Ken Siegrist attending a vertical practice as a member of the Oregon High Desert Grotto. Cross reference it with # 7 and you will note Ken Siegrist again, and you can clearly see his work gating caves to protect the mineral resources. Again, suggesting that government sources are generally not adequate as secondary sources is a stark contrast to your statement that "government documents are usually primary sources," or "not really an indication of notability." That's not what it says on WP:NOTE, as I clearly pointed out earlier, so it redeems several of my sources you are claiming no or little notability. I have plenty of sources as requested to satisfy the two of the original proposals for deletion: Outside the local area of influence, and significance (as noted in the sources). If all you want to do is recognize four sources and not even research the other two you clearly mislabeled as the grotto's publication, then so be it. I tried my best to satisfy the requirements, but apparently government publications, newspapers, government websites, alternative publications (Underground Express), public videos, etc., just aren't good enough for you. Awards, video production, cave management, invertebrate studies, consulting, bat studies, are notable in my book. Vote away. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Since the names of the underground newsletters are rather close (and not consistent throughout), I was off on two of citations out of 29, but it actually doesn't change anything, which I will cover below as they still are not independent). As to not doing one's homework and your other accusations, be careful, as you might want to read #29 yourself again. Their is an add like mention of the group at the bottom of one page, but the only in-article coverage is in the bats section, which ends with a byline, which goes as follows: "Julie York, Wildlife Biologist & Neil Marchington, Oregon High Desert Grotto" which, correct me if I'm wrong says someone named Marchington is with the group. So, still no notability conferred. As to The Underground Express it is not independent, as it is the newsletter of the sister Willamette Valley Grotto, another chapter of the NSS, which as a coincidence, so is this group. You don't get notability by one chapter talking about another chapter, sorry. As to local sources and the like, that may be true as to why someone nominated this article, but I never mentioned that. Local sources are fine by me, but how local they are does weigh in on their reliability and does factor into my thoughts on what are notable. Local groups are fine, I write about them all the time, but the sources I use come mainly from the big regional newspaper (top 25 in circulation in the US) and not primarily from the smaller local newspaper. So, that this group got coverage in Tillamook county means nothing to me (especially when they are not publishing the source versus printing it or discussing it, much like a library in Salem having the Bend newspaper on the rack does not extend the reach of the notability conferred by the Bend paper). And, the second problem with your argument on this, is all the sources are Oregon sources, and some might consider those only local, as you see what is local is up to interpretation, especially on a world-wide project such as Wikipedia. So, nothing changes in my book. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Okay, so The Underground Express isn't notable. And you don't like Tillamook County. The Volcanic Vistas is not just by Neil Marchington, but Julie York who is from the U.S. Forest service and works with the Oregon High Desert Grotto, so perhaps half of that article is notable? Which half, I guess we can't be sure. And it's not an ad, the Forest Service needs all the help they can get to conserve the resources they get, and seeing as how the Grotto works with the Forest service it's a win-win situation and benefits the forest service. But I guess that too is up for interpretation. But the Volcanic Vistas article isn't just about bats, which you may have missed. It specifically notes Neil Marchington finding new species of invertebrates. If you don't know a new species exists, how can you protect it? But honestly, I don't see a problem with the locality issue. It's relative. Have I stated that before? Local is up for interpretation, just like the word region is. For most American towns, under my interpretation and experience (which probably means squat here), local usually does not represent an entire state, especially one the size of Oregon, which dwarfs a lot of countries by comparison. And when relating this to the internet, locality is possibly a moot point. I realize it's relative, but often if you are referring to a state as local, it has probably surpassed the condition of being "local" and has become a "region" as in the case of watersheds. The New York Times is local on a world wide scale. And in my eyes, too American specific and biased. You should be pulling references from a newspaper that is published for global audience and not slanted with a local American view. But that's only my interpretation of local concerning the world wide web of global scale. But then again, that too is totally relative. Maybe someday the Mars wikipedia will cite the Earth wikipedia as too local? But please, I'm done editing the grotto page if its only going to get deleted. I'd rather waste my time elsewhere. Please vote and get it over with. Leitmotiv (talk) 23:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                      • One last small thing. If the OPB TV Oregon Field Guide video on lava caves mentioned "Oregon High Desert Grotto" on the page, would that change your perspective slightly? Leitmotiv (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(unindent) If I may interject, the issue wasn't the original lack of sources noting the grotto's influence beyond it's [sic] local area, but that the sources were themselves literally not from outside the local area... that is, there need to be sources from outside of the area where the group is based, to establish that the information in the newspapers, etc., isn't because of the "small-town newspaper printing local interest stories" effect (per WP:LOCAL). So Bend-area newspapers are nice, but notability is best established by something from outside that area. It doesn't have to be the New York Times, but anything non-trivial is helpful. --Kinu t/c 18:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Underground Express, The Oregon Caves N.M, Tillamook meeting, OPB TV, government state websites, are all from outside the area. Volcanic Vistas overlaps the local area, but goes beyond. Given much more time for editing, I'd find articles from The Speleograph as well that confer notability, and that publication is from outside the area as well. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I normally strongly dislike articles on local groups affiliated with tlarger national ones--they tend to be a combination of repetitive basic material and promotional or directory specific information. There are exceptions though,m when there is something special to present, with good sources for it. This is one of the exceptions. Local newspapers and other local sources are a problem for local articles because they tend be to promotional, dominated by PR, and the inclusiveness of every possible local object or person of interest. This is not necessarily the case--they can often do a very good job, and spearate out the necessary directory information they contain from the more substantial material. I think this is the case with the sources here. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to parent organization and do something to preserve the content - either keep it as an old pre-redirect history or move it to a talk-subpage of parent organization or as a sub-page of the relevant Wikiproject, as was done with Bulbasaur, a Pokemon-related article. I see nothing in this article that indicates it is notable as a chapter of a larger organization. The question on my mind is "what, besides the things common to most or all members of the parent organization, is notable about this group." Did it win a national award? Was it invited to the White House? You get the idea. The other question on my mind are "are members of this larger organization, or for that matter state/local groups of this type in general, considered by wiki-history to be given the benefit of the doubt in notability discussions, in the same way that, say, High Schools in the United States are?" Not that I'm aware of. The only reasons I'm not saying "delete" outright is 1) there may be some merge-able material, and 2) it's a decent article, the problem is the subject. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. The article shows sufficient notability of the subject. Merge is not feasible: large text, independent topic. Laudak (talk) 05:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 21:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bethlehem Baptist Church (Minneapolis)

edit
Bethlehem Baptist Church (Minneapolis) (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. not clear how this church is notable. RadioFan (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is simply one local article, only peripherally about the organization in question. "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability," from WP:N. Tb (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's so trivially obvious, can you do more than google searches, and show us some non-local articles which are about BBC as a prime focus of the article? Tb (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've now included a number of both local and non-local RSs as refs in the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Long history or having multiple sites are not, in themselves, notability. There is this one article which mentions it as an example of a growing social phenomenon (cited above by Eastmain). That's not notability. Tb (talk) 04:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the guideline allows us to look at that as indicia of notability where it would otherwise fail.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think if it were notable, it would have been noted more than that. It's a judgment call, and my judgment is, not notable. One article, one time? Tb (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline that allows us to keep an article based on the long history of the subject is when the subject would not otherwise meet the notability criteria. So this seems to me a perfect situation to apply that exception. IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline is not simply that anything which has been around a hundred years passes notability even if nobody talks much about it in the world at large. Tb (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the mention that longevity may be taken into account, does not supercede the requirement that notability be more than purely local. "Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead." Is there evidence from outside the area of notability? There is, AFAICT, mentions of this organization only in one local newspaper article. If that's it, it's not notable. If there is more, there has been ample opportunity to establish it. Note that the lack of notability is impeding the ability of the article to be based upon verifiable sources. Indeed, nothing in the article is sourced; there are no independent sources of information to establish even the basic question of how long the organization has been around, the names of its leaders, when services were in different languages, etc. The only sources seem to be unpublished internally produced histories of the organization. Consider how tiny this article would be if we removed that which is not verifiable under WP:V! Tb (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its not clear to me that wp:before has been followed. See this and this and this. This church passes for notability on a number of levels. Longevity -- evidenced by the sources, is simply one of them, and the fastest way for me to note it. But I do think that before people nom an article for deletion wp:before suggests that it is incumbent upon them to spend 2 minutes doing a google search.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. I did of course searche, and what I found was consistently mention that someone was a member, and only local press. Piper is mentioned all the time (no doubt he's notable), and BBC comes up, again and again, as where he is pastor, but not as the subject of the article. If we prune the obits, the articles about Piper, and so forth, we don't actually get anything notable: and, here's the kicker, we don't get anything to verify any of the stuff in the article. As an example, see that if you exclude "-Piper" from the Google Scholar search, suddenly you have only sixteen cites, you find that none of them is actually about BBC. If you think the article can satisfy verifiability, don't you think it should be possible to find verifiable sources for the stuff in the article so easily, given your confidence? I looked, and I couldn't find any. Perhaps the thing to do is to pepper it with citation needed tags, wait a months, remove the non-verifiable stuff, and then start the AfD again, with evidence that there is virtually nothing verifiable and non-self-published to rely on in writing the article. (Start with this: what, pray tell, were the sources used by the article's authors?) Tb (talk) 23:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I totally assumed good faith (even in the above). I just questioned whether despite good faith a wp:before review was engaged it. wp:org also has language re, if the depth of the refs is not as much as we generally would like, but the refs are many, notability can also be evidenced. If I have time, I will look at the hits more, with your comments in mind, though. As far as their source, it may have been this.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be even more productive to focus on verifiability, remembering that self-published sources, blogs, etc., are no good. Since both WP:V and WP:N are independent requirements, I suspect that if you (or the page's authors) could find actual verifiable secondary sources for the many statements made in the article, the issue of notability would be settled. And, if you (or they) can't find any such sources, then the article should be removed for that reason. (Note that the book you refer to is self-published, and is not sufficient to function as a source of verifiablity, or evidence of notability.) Tb (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've taken a few minutes and added a few. Even ignoring the self-published material, there is enough in the article now to confirm its 130 year old history, and if anyone wants to use google they can add more sources.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You added one self-published resource, but it's hard not to be suspicious. Do you have a copy of the book? Did you examine it? Let's assume, no. So what we have is one source in a directory, and still no independent verifiable anything about the church. I think it's time to edit the article to remove all that cannot be verified. Shall we? Tb (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow. We now have 10 sources between the references and ELs. The existence of each of those can be confirmed by the inline link. 5 are secondary, 4 are primary, and the last 1is in the middle but closer perhaps to primary (Baptist General Conference of America).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have to say, so far it's a whole lot of nothing. A lot of primary historical sources from an archive (which makes the article prohibited original research) and a few mentions. Look, notability is about people, outside the organization, taking note, on a broad and not local basis. That just hasn't happened. And the catalog of archive sources isn't itself a source: only the actual documents would be, and have you checked those?! Tb (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that primary sources don't count towards notability. But "prohibited original research" to refer to them? I didn't think so. Can you point to where that is stated? Perhaps I missed it. I belive that we do have some sources now beyond original sources. Where I couldn't get into the original source, I listed it as an EL rather than as a ref supporting any proposition. That way if this survives, people will know of its existence and can pursue it if they are interested.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, a citation that is about Piper, and not about BBC, and, once again, a directory source. Tb (talk) 23:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I'm looking at the same source. Jayjg's quote is about the church (as is much of the other text in the paragraph he took it from). And I don't know what you mean when you say this is a "directory source". The author does not appear to be connected at all to the church. I actually think this was a great find by Jayjg.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I have a 130 year old tree in my backyard. It doesn't have any reliable sources though. CynofGavuf 11:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There really ought to be some descriptions of it in conventional 3rd party sources in that time. Does the city have no newspapers? Has nobody written a book about the churches in general? Has no one outside the local church written a book or historical article published by someone other than the church and discussed it? However, this is not a problem with respect to V. For routine facts about an organization, it's own web site and publications are acceptable unless theye matter is challenged or controversial. DGG ( talk ) 17:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There essentially are none. That's because it's not notable. Tb (talk) 20:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are, and a number have now been added to the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RF. Actually, I see it slightly differently on two counts. First, there may well be a keep consensus expressed above, and the delete votes were largely cast before the full complement of RS refs were added. Second, all 18 refs relate to the church, but few if any are used in the article to discuss Piper.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per consensus. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 17:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freakscene

edit
Freakscene (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 can't find significant coverage for this nightclub. Joe Chill (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ignoring multivotes from one user, consensus is either 'keep' or 'no consensus'. tedder (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank K. Wheaton

edit
Frank K. Wheaton (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:ENTERTAINER. As for the rest of this, it is mind-numbingly non-notable, including the genealogy and the mundane life history. It's hard to see how anybody could think this meets WP notability standards, despite the references. It's important to remember that verifiability is not the same thing as notability. Qworty (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are you kidding? Mr. Wheaton is a leading entertainment attorney in his field. His company has represented some of the top people in entertainment. He's also produced many regional and international events and is a former board member of BESLA. Mr. Wheaton is also listed in "Who's Who Among African Americans." You'd be hard pressed to find an entertainment executive that has had the depth of experience and recognition that he has. He is clearly notable.Igbo (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I don't understand why the subject would be judged by the standards of WP:ENTERTAINER when his primary activity is being a lawyer/agent. There are a fair number of Google News Archive hits for his name, but most of them involve his representation of the woman who was revealed to be Strom Thurmond's daughter rather than being primarily about Wheaton himself. In order to establish him as notable, it would be helpful if sources could be presented to show that he meets the general notability guidelines. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'll agree that his notability is more in the sports area. His sports accomplishments are very significant. Very few sports agents have represented so many top athletes and produced major sporting events for them. He's worked with Michael Jordan, James Worthy and Flo-Jo among others. He's also worked with major entertainment figures such as Marla Gibbs and Milton Berle. Igbo (talk) 02:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. 2 relists with light participation and split votes indicates no agreement at this time. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harihar Natu

edit
Harihar Natu (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 can find no evidence this individual is notable. The only online mention I can find is a picture of a house someone with this name owns, posted by his son - someone with the same name as the author of this aticle. I42 (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harihar Natu is a performar in vernacular languge Marathi,First how you will get reference in english news search only,ofcourse Marathi Languge google search returns one refrence here This reference is more about as an organiser of an event of his folk art kirtan. News Media any way happens to take very less note of folk art and artists and specialy so Indian media, How you will get, It seems to be true that his seems to have published this article , but this seems not a promotional article also, The same fellow by mistake written a little longer article at Marathi Languge wiktionay.
I feel we need to belive in people. A performer of 25 years with All India Radio can be trated as notable , Besides Marathi text given at wiktionary states that he has recived a state level award from Governer of Maharashtra .I do not find any reason not to treat him as notable.Mahitgar (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I searched for sources and didn't find any. The linked Marathi article has a passing 1 sentence reference to Harihar Natu, and although my Marathi is pretty poor, I didn't see any biographical information in it. We cannot write a biograpy of a living person without any sources. Abecedare (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient notability. An Indian performer is expected to be covered in English-languege press, if notable. Laudak (talk) 05:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NZ-333 Alpha Azieru

edit
NZ-333 Alpha Azieru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article which manages to be both an unsourced collection of original research yet most of it (the Specifications section) is a fairly clear copyvio from some primary source. No notability shown at all. Black Kite 22:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Despite the complete lack of sources, there's no consenus to delete or merge the content. I'd recommend that editors continue a discussion of cleanup and sourcing, and discuss a merge to View Askewniverse#Notable characters Fences&Windows 17:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of View Askewniverse

edit
Characters of View Askewniverse (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 list of characters. Notability is not established in the article, and no references are given, indicating that no usable independent study or survey of these characters has been made to establish notability. Not enough reliable and substantial third-party material exists to support a viable article. Mikeblas (talk) 22:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good reference for Silent Bob and his friend not for this list. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Acceptable spin-out article. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep lists of characters from a series of notable works are generally notable, and there's no dispute that Kevin Smith's work is notable. Jclemens (talk) 08:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The relation between the characters is not strong. Many characters appear in only one film. We don't have list of characters that appeared in a single movie because their part is covered in the plot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cybercobr and Jclemens. This is an acceptable list of notable fictional characters. It is better to have one big article or list than a bunch of smaller ones, per WP:OUTCOMES. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First, this is not a single movie, a/c the main article, but a series of films & related books, etc., so this is the standard way to handle it. It is much clearer than scatterring it among the different short works, which is one alternative, and enormously better than writing a separate article about each. (But even if it were a single work, this should be the practice if the work is notable or complex enough to justify it--and if not, in a characters section in the article. . I agree that in many cases "we do not have lists of characters that appeared in a single movie" and that "their part is covered in the plot." This seems to be a local consensus of the film wikiproject, to prevent even a list of them, and i think it should be rejected. The coverage this way either in a list or separate article is far below what we do with other media, and I see no justification for it. Projects are subject to the general consensus.) DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a single movie but most of the characters appear only once. We have a policy in most TV series not to mention characters that appeared only once. Why follow a different approach here? Examples: "LaFours is a fictional character from the film, Mallrats", "Emma appears in a supporting role in Clerks II.", "Bartleby and Loki are two characters from Dogma.", etc. Especially the description of the last two characters seems to me like the plot of the film. This is confusing for the readers because it add extra weight to details that it shouldn't. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. The article was formerly titled "minor characters." If we were to merge all of the other View Askew character articles (Jay and Silent Bob, Randal Graves, Dante Hicks, others), those appear in different media and in more than one movie. Jay and Bob appear in just about every movie, Randal and Dante in Clerks and Clerks II, and all four appear in the animated series and the comic books. I've been meaning to do it for some time but have not had much time to concentrate on the task. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jay and Silent Bob are notable and they already have their article. I would prefer an article for them and not merge them with character which appear in a single film. Characters of the Clerks can also have their article because if they were developed in different media I guess they should be articles in magasines about then. I can't think of any article discussing any of the one-time characters of the films covered in the article above. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sources have provided here to establish notability which have satisfied those who have commented after they were provided that notability is established. They do need to be added to the article however. Davewild (talk) 10:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RTorrent

edit
RTorrent (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 non-notable software article has no third party references. The most obvious hits on google references searches prove the software exists, but do not show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By 'google references searches', do you mean just a straight Google? Because I see many hits in Books/News/Scholar. --Gwern (contribs) 22:26 15 November 2009 (GMT)
Those hits are trivial mentions. Joe Chill (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the books/scholar/news searches and they were not significant. "You can use software like rTorrent to download torrents." is not significant coverage. Miami33139 (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second of two suggested torrent clients on the Debian Wiki and I've seen it recommended in a bunch of other places. It seems to be well thought of. Hga (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Notability is the criteria we wish to look for. Recommendations on user submitted content sites are not. Miami33139 (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is not a one-size-fits-all-good-for-what-ails-ya guideline; we just don't have good ideas about what makes notability for FLOSS or even BitTorrent software in general. Looking through Category:Free BitTorrent clients and at examples like Gnome BitTorrent or Tomato Torrent or Freeloader (software) or Miro (software), I don't see anything like the usual stuff in a BLP, for example; the only one with the usual panoply of MSM sources is utorrent. Unless one is willing to say that the entire category is rotten, blind counting of MSM sources would not seem to be the correct method. --Gwern (contribs) 00:24 16 November 2009 (GMT)
Part of the problem with pointing out that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is that it encourages people to go notice that it probably doesn't belong here. It really doesn't matter what the software does, or how it is licensed or developed. We don't document every software tool just like we do not document every model of toaster. It is a core principle of Verifiability that if we document something somebody else had to document it first. Most software is not interesting, even if it is unique, and something has to tell us that this software is not run-of-the-mill. Miami33139 (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a WP:IAR !vote. I understand this is not strictly passing WP:GNG, but in such cases this seems to me a weak argument to delete. We badly need distinct guidelines for free software notability. Such software can have a wide and strong community, and thus being notable in the broad meaning of the word -used and known by a non-trivial amount of people- without ever ending up in "classical" sources, simply because these are not the venues in which such softwares are usually extensively discussed. We had several examples of that. There is no reason to think the information in the article is unverifiable or unreliable, even if it relies mostly on primary sources and/or non-conventional sources. Deletion of the article, therefore, does nothing to improve WP -quite the contrary. --Cyclopiatalk 00:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of computer users that actually use bittorrent is fairly small and it is our systemic bias on Wikipedia that makes us think differently. Then when we consider the even smaller number of users who prefer oddball client software (this is not the primary client on any major distro), and that to even think about using this software, it requires Linux, which has a small userbase to begin with, and we do have a pretty good sense that this software is indeed trivial. Being the primary go-to information source for software like this does damage Wikipedia because it turns us into a vehicle for WP:PROMOTION, which is against a core policy, not just a guideline like Notability. Miami33139 (talk) 07:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It depends on what you mean as "small". I don't think that we require millions of users to deem something worth of inclusion. About WP:PROMOTION, it applies to the tone of the article, and not on the existence itself of the article (in most cases). In this case the article, apart perhaps for a sentence in the introduction, seems decently unbiased. Mere technical coverage is not promotion, in my opinion. I stand by my (admittedly heterodox) statement. --Cyclopiatalk 10:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The mere existence of a Wikipedia article is a method of promotion for non-notable things even if the language in the article is our definition of neutral. This is why there is speedy deletion criteria for bands, people, and companies. This is why DRV is constantly being appealed to by PR firms.
          • If the language is neutral and information is verifiable, the fact that it "promotes" is a mere by-product of which we should not care at all. The fact that an otherwise unbiased article accidentally helps or hinders X is not a reason to avoid covering X. --Cyclopiatalk 16:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just went to wikipedia for some general information about this client and discovered the deletion candidate status. No I did not google first, I nowadays expect wikipedia to be the place to look for these things. I know a number of people who praise rtorrent, but before I look into it I collect some information. It is in the official software repository of my Linux distribution (and I imagine in many others as well). And no, the official homepage of the client is not the place to go for me, because should there be any items to criticise about the product, chances are that these are not mentioned there. So please, *keep* this article, it was really useful to me.

Update: just did some research on my earlier point: This page [1] lists no less then 10 Linux distributions have rtorrent in their repositories, including Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, SUSE and Mandriva. (read: the major players) This is also the case for OpenBSD, FreeBSD and NetBSD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.116.8.38 (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being listed in repositories does not make something notable, or we would have an article for every piece of software in the iPhone app store. What you are saying, is that you come to Wikipedia as your first source, and you expect Wikipedia to be your first source of information. This is not why Wikipedia is here. In fact, the Original Research policy absolutely prevents Wikipedia from being the first publisher of information. You expect to find criticism but we require that criticism be verifiably attributed to third party reliable sources. This article is not attributed to sources, therefore the information in it is potentially suspect of being wrong and you would be misled in your reliance on it. Miami33139 (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, actually it somehow does in my opinion, in the meaning that it means that different third parties feature it. In a certain sense this is third-party coverage: it means that several third parties reviewed it and deemed it suitable for featuring on their distributions. It is in some way akin to peer-reviewed coverage.
  • More importantly, your argument about "first source" is totally disingenous. The user intended is that he expects to look here first before further search, to find a roughly reliable summary of information here, before looking for further sources -that's what an encyclopaedia is for, and I agree with him. --Cyclopiatalk 22:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must agree with the preceding comment. I go to Wikipedia before other sources just because most things that I actually want a neutral piece of information about usually exists here. If Wikipedia would delete all articles about things that are "not notable" in the sense they are fairly obscure to the majority of people, then it would (even if it was done to follow policy) suddenly loose so much of its usefulness to me (and others, I presume). If policy dictates that all software projects, bands or concepts that are obscure and not very well known be deleted from Wikipedia, then that policy is not followed very well right now, which suits at least me just fine. I just hope that is not the case.--Zond Fri Nov 20 10:04:51 CET 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 09:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
    • It is really a strange discussion here. I am using rTorrent for years now as it is optimized for speed and most commonly used on servers. It is not a graphical client as it is exactly that: optimized for speed AND for network server use. So it is a unique piece of software unlike other bittorrent clients. And - when I am using it and look for the bittorrent clients used in conjunction with downloading / uploading it is either uTorrent (Windows), Vuze/Azureus (all OS'es), Transmission (Mac), libtorrent (UN*X & Linux: rTorrent shows itself as libtorrent) and sometimes also the mainline client and others. So from my experience I would expect a much broader user base for rTorrent than just 40000 ... I am not a wikipedia contributor so all the "WP:xx" stuff doesn't really belong to me. However, I see some widespread use of this client, so please take that into consideration for your "deletion vote" --91.42.250.57 (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are there any mainstream magazines, journals, or books that describe the use of rTorrent on servers? Is it actually part of or forked from libtorrent, and maybe our article on libtorrent and rtorrent could be combined? Miami33139 (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • libTorrent (Rakshasa) and rTorrent are actually two parts of the same program: libTorrent is the "working horse" and the underlying library, rTorrent is the user-visible interface. Both articles could (and maybe: should) be merged, yes. libTorrent (Rakshasa) was a fork from Libtorrent (rasterbar) and libTorrent is only used together with rTorrent. So libTorrent doesn't play any role without rTorrent - and rTorrent doesn't play any role without libTorrent. rTorrent / libTorrent are - as I stated before - used on network servers. As network servers have a low visibility in the general public the same is true for the programs used on network servers. So you will not find that many (printed or whatever) articles in magazines etc. about rTorrent / libTorrent as you usually do not use it on home PC's (and most printed magazines try to adress a larger audience and that excludes people using server software). I just tried and I failed... Anyway, libTorrent / rTorrent are quite visible on the net. That might happen because you can keep rTorrent running on servers over months and even years without any interruption. --91.42.250.57 (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, LibTorrent_(Rakshasa) should probably merged into rTorrent (while keeping some redirection in place). Rakshasa's libtorrent isn't a fork of rasterbar's, it's an entirely independent project. 62.224.48.204 (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seedbox points to rTorrent and has a reference on Slyck.com that also mentions rTorrent in that context. Perhaps that is considered less user generated, though a Debian wiki reference would enjoy a higher reputation/trustworthiness. 62.224.48.204 (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikis, including Wikipedia, are not reliable sources. Miami33139 (talk) 01:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, they have to print it on paper and call it The People's Daily, no matter how wrong something is it suddenly becomes a reliable source then. I like the spirit of WP:IAR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.224.48.204 (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. See the following reviews: [2] (a comparison of "9 of the best Free Linux Bittorrent Software" with rtorrent being one of them); see this review of the "Linux Editor" at softpedia, summarizing at the end of the article: "It's probably the best torrent client for Linux": [3]. Also see this "feature article" at linux.com: [4]. There is an interesting article about using rTorrent with firefox to get the full performance by avoiding using the bare cli frontend of rtorrent here: [5]. Finally I can't resist to add two links of quite enthusiatic users (although I know that it doesn't count here in this deletion process): [6], [7]. I am asking myself why the wikipedia article about rTorrent is so developer-centric when there is so much more to tell ... --91.42.225.168 (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of the additional references, particularly the linux.com one, which is a full review. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But article needs to be extended a bit. mfg, OldDeath (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMSN

edit
AMSN (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. Just another non-notable clone of a popular chat client. JBsupreme (talk) 23:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chicane discography. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love on the Run (Chicane Song)

edit
Love on the Run (Chicane Song) (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 notability at this time Alankc (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per consensus. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 17:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hoodwinked characters

edit
List of Hoodwinked characters (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 list of characters from a single film which consists of nothing other than plot summary. Wholly unnecessary and fails WP:NOTPLOT. PC78 (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge to the main article--there is not enough material here to call for separate articles. But keep as a separate section with this amount of information. I know the Films Wikiproject prefers to submerge it into the plot, but thats only their local consensus and we do differently for all other media. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is an incorrect statement on several levels. One it is not just "local consensus" but the consensus of both a large, active project and one that has been repeatedly upheld in GA and FA reviews. Two, "all other media" do not do it different. Novels, for example, generally have no character lists/sections at all unless its a lengthy series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 06:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Men's News Daily

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

Notability, secondary sources, neutral point of view, self-promotion VegetativePup (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My problems with the article are: lack of notability of the subject, lack of non-trivial secondary sources, lack of neutral point of view, and self-promotion by the author. VegetativePup (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further explanation, at the nominator's request:
"The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations"
First of all, I found a wealth of trivial mentions of MND (far too many to list), indicating that it's a well-established, fairly prominent website. That said, WP:WEB suggests that websites should be the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial published works. Upon closer examination, many of the sources I located with Google only mentioned MND tangentially, although it's worth noting that they treated it as a fairly prominent site. Here are some sources that are independent of the subject that count as significant coverage:
  • [8] is an article about MND that appeared in several major newspapers.
  • [9] is a magazine article about MND.
  • [10] is a published online work about MND.
  • [11] describes MND as a "credible, daily news, commentary, sex roles, satire, irreverence, metropolitan trends," although I'm not sure if that counts as a reliable source.
  • [12] is a science journal that cites material from MND. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.244.33 (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization"
N/A
"The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster"
Not sure if this applies. For what it's worth, I was able to find articles from MND on other sites, although I'm not sure if any one of those qualifies under this criterion.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elysian Pictures

edit
Elysian Pictures (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 can't find significant coverage for this film company. Joe Chill (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee Films

edit
Coffee Films (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 can't find significant coverage for this film company. Joe Chill (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hornbill Films

edit
Hornbill Films (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 can't find significant coverage for this film company. Joe Chill (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TaiKo Supermarket

edit
TaiKo Supermarket (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; doesn't appear to meet guidelines of WP:COMPANY PKT(alk) 02:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsourced, doesn't even attempt to claim notability beyond the bounds of the specific neighbourhood it's located in, and is treading rather close to {{advert}} territory, to boot (address, phone number, product listing, etc.) As well, I had a hunch about who might have created the article in the first place, and followed the article history to discover that I was right — this is a user who once created an article about the weekly shuttle bus service from one specific suburban-Toronto seniors' home to the nearest Asian grocery market. And that wasn't even this Asian grocery market, either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IShares DJ STOXX 50

edit
IShares DJ STOXX 50 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similarly to IShares DJ Euro Stoxx 50, this article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It should be deleted. Neelix (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmud Jan

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

Can't find any newspapers or sources about this CynofGavuf 12:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chicane discography#Singles. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiding All The Stars

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

possibly fails wikipedia notability guidelines, insufficient context and referances, not high charting at all. Alankc (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chicane discography. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong in Love

edit
Strong in 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)

seems to fail notabilityt. no context, one referance, can be included on main article. Alankc (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chicane discography. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lost You Somewhere

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

almsot no context, one referance, doesn't seem to pass notability, should at least be merged, can be recreated if song becomes notable Alankc (talk) 00:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Duarte Design. Spartaz Humbug! 06:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Duarte

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

Does not appear to be notable. Zhang He (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not changing my opinion - this article and Duarte Design should be merged and kept. Two points, though. (a) The references need to go into the article(s), not just this AfD. (b) The references (possibly with the exception of the El Pais article) establish the notability of the company, not of its founder. I still don't think they're _independently_ notable, so as to deserve two articles. Tevildo (talk) 13:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability added to article during this very long discussion. Laudak (talk) 05:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Jehangir Hormusji Kothari

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

Page was created in October 2007 and has not developed since. It merely says that the subject was a Parsi and a philanthropist - no assertion of notabilty and no detail to aid assessment of notability. Google search throws up Wiki copies but nothing of note. Emeraude (talk) 11:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. None of the references from gbooks or gnews say anything about the subject of this AfD, he is either mentioned in passing or a part of a list. The two other references put forth (one of which is the lone gnews hit) likewise only mentions the subject, saying nothing about him other than that he donated land. J04n(talk page) 10:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also:
  • Sydney Morning Herald interviews him and covers his trip to Australia, during his 11th world tour, and says that he is, "noted equally for his contributions to the Imperial funds during the war, for his generous gifts to his native city of Karachi, and for his activities as an unofficial ambassador of the British Empire in all parts of the world."
  • Newspaper report during his 1923 visit to melbourne during his 6th world tour.
  • The New York Times covered his visit to NY in its Nov 28, 1931 edition.
Abecedare (talk) 08:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. One incident does not normally make someone notable for wikipedia. Should reliable sources be found that indicates that this person is notable for multiple notable events, there is should be no prejudice against recreation—suitably cited and supported. -- Avi (talk) 08:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quincy Washington

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

Only claim to notability was winning a game show Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put Your Arms Around Me (Texas song)

edit
Put Your Arms Around Me (Texas song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

very little content, barely notable, and not likely to become more notable after 12 years. can be merged into main article Alan - talk 21:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Pmlineditor ∞ 10:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halo (Texas song)

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

little content, not likely the song will become more notable after 12 years. can be merged to main article. Alan - talk 21:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Quite a large number of the comments incorporated all of the worst points of WP:JUSTAVOTE, WP:ILIKEIT, WP:GHITS, WP:WAX, and WP:ITSNOTABLE and were ignored. Bottom line is that the consensus is that the article does not pass WP:GNG or WP:WEB as there is not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. NW (Talk) 20:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a good idea to microwave this

edit
Is it a good idea to microwave this (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A7 declined. Amusing videos, but the show doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB standards. Their subscriber and viewing rates are somewhat significant, but this and this are the only hits in a GNews archive search, which just doesn't cut it. I can't find much mention in other reliable sources, either. JamieS93 21:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I've donated them abunch of items and they deserve to stay as recognized small Youtube Contributors, they've met most of the youtube celebs from the 789 Gathering anyways... Sanchmarc (talk) 4:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment While this is true, I believe he is asking what is the difference between this and other articles that makes them notable, but this not? ░▒▓█▌Cm0n3y34▐▓▒░ 21:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: From Tubefilter: Tubefilter News has been cited by Variety, and its staff have been quoted by the Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor, The Wrap, and BusinessWeek when covering the web television industry. All claims have sources backing up claims of validity. It would appear that Tubefilter is indeed a reliable source. They also operate the Streamy Awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbifriday (talk • contribs) 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: avast! caught that bugger in the process of downloading it as well. I would've posted it if it weren't for the edit conflicts. ConCompS (Talk to me) 01:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Umm. . . there was no virus. It was a JPG of the newspaper article, and mcafee (up to date) spotted nothing.
  • Comment – Notability does not transfer from one entity to another. BTW - there are only 523 Google hits. For some reason the numbers are not correct - you can see this if you go to the last page of the search. ttonyb (talk) 01:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There needs to be some rules changed by wikipeida. . . This is considered notable by many, and by definition, notable is :
adj.
1. Worthy of note or notice; remarkable: notable beauty; sled dogs that are notable for their stamina.
2. Characterized by excellence or distinction; eminent: formed a commission of notable citizens. See Synonyms at noted.
n.
1. A person of distinction or great reputation. See Synonyms at celebrity.
2. often Notable One of a council of prominent persons in pre-Revolutionary France called into assembly to deliberate at times of emergency.
I don't see "In more than x newspapers or news shows. The show has been featured on multiple video websites, has been in the news (apparently not often enough for Wikipedia), the hosts have been on TV, and the show has 173,839 users who subscribed to the Youtube channel. Who knows how many other users watch the show without subscribing? I (and at least 150,000 others) feel this show, and the hosts (Jon, Jory, and Riley) deserve a wiki page for Is it a Good Idea to Microwave This, as well as pages about the hosts themselves. ░▒▓█▌Cm0n3y34▐▓▒░ 21:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The deal is, if we didn't set definitive boundaries and criteria, I'm afraid the term "notable" would become very subjective. I agree that a few aspects of the notability guidelines may be flawed, but one person's perception of a subject being "significant/noteworthy" will be very different from another, and I think we'd end up with a mess. This is not just a website, it's an encyclopedia, and actually a very inclusive one if you think of others such as Britannica, which focus on topics like science and history. JamieS93 21:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The question, Talkingbirds, is what do we define as "Several". As far as I know, there is no true numerical value of several. Therefore, we can not quantify "Several" by saying that the show haven't been mentioned in "Several" reliable publications. The show has been featured in at least two, possibly more that are simply harder to find. I believe that we can not say with certainty that this article has not met WP:GNG. --Fbifriday (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Nicely done ConCompS. Let's all remember what this page is for, it is to determine if the article meets Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. It is not for a prolonged discussion of the criteria for inclusion. Cm0n3y34, you are more then welcome to argue that changes be made to the criteria, but they are better placed on the criteria page than here. Including such discussion here only hides it from those that might agree with your comments and does not contribute to the original intent of this page. Additionally, it makes it harder for the reviewing admin to focus on the points made to save the article. Thanks everyone... ttonyb (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an additional source (of unknown reliability) is here Is It A Good Idea To Microwave A Nintendo Zapper | Smash Gamers Kb3pxr (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - If Chad_Vader and Smosh can have their own wikipedia page with most of the references being their own videos, and the rest being unreliable as per WP:RS, then Is It A Good Idea To Microwave This can also have their own article. Smosh has one article where the one mention of them is that they had one an award a for best comedy video at the youtube awards, and Chad Vader has no reliable sources. However, Smosh has only been challenged 3 times by an AFD request. Once it was kept, twice the request was withdrawn. And Chad Vader has never had an AFD request put on it. If we hold one article to the WP:WEB, then must we not hold them all to the same standard, which would result in the deletion of most of the List of YouTube celebrities's articles? --Fbifriday (talk) 04:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – All articles are held to the same standards. As pointed out above, the existence of an article does not justify the existence of another article. See WP:WAX. Each article must stand on its own merits and meet the criteria for notability. There may be other articles that should be nominated for deletion and you are welcome to nominate them. ttonyb (talk) 05:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My point is that the Smosh article was kept after being nominated, with fewer sources than this. Also, remember WP:BURO. I believe we are over-interpreting A7 in this case, as A7 "does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source.", and does apply "if the claim of significance or importance given is not credible." The credibility given by the Boston Herald article does indeed state why the subject is important or significant. Also, the line included in the article "As of November 2009, the channel is the #93 most subscribed channel of all time with over 173,000 subscribers on YouTube.", which includes a verifiable source, is enough to invalidate the line in A7 that states that a nomination under the A7 section means that the article "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". There needs to be no source to verify that claim, it simply needs to make a credible claim, which it is due to the amount of subscribers and the Boston Herald article. Therefore, the reason for nominating this article under A7 is invalidated. --Fbifriday (talk) 05:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – The flaw in your argument is this is not a Speedy Deletion. This is an AfD. A credible claim of notability is used only to save an article from Speedy Deletion. Once it has made a claim, it has to actually demonstrate notability. A single article or two is not enough to support the criteria in WP:WEB or WP:NOTE. As far as the number of subscribed users to the channel, popularity does not equal Wikipedia notability. There is no indication of that as a criteria in WP:WEB. Keep in mind that "real-world" notability does not equal Wikipedia notability. ttonyb (talk) 07:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:WEB can not be used as an argument for deletion for this article, as the article does indeed meet the first criteria of WP:WEB. "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.". Multiple meaning more than one. There is no limit that must be met in order for it to be notable, it just says "Multiple". Two is "Mutiple". Three is "Multiple". 15 is "Multiple". There is no way to say that two articles is not enough, unless it's just your opinion, because two articles is multiple. Two articles are listed, one in the Boston Herald, which is a reputable newspaper with wide distribution, and Tubefilter, which is often quoted in widespread media organizations when discussing web television shows. It also meets WP:GNG. It has had significant coverage, meaning it was the subject of two articles which are independent. The sources are reliable, as per WP:RS. They also are secondary sources, as both sources are not associated with the material being covered. There is also a third article listed at the bottom of the WP article, although I am not sure if it is a reliable source, so I have decided to leave it out of my argument. But the two articles is enough to verify notability. --Fbifriday (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Going by WP policy, there are no secondary sources indepedent of the subject which discuss the article topic, which is what is used to confer notability and whther or not a topic merits inclusion on WP. Based on the arguments of "Keep", I haven't seen one comment that stays with WP policy, and is mostly opinions. It seems like this has a lot of popularity, and a lot of people editting here probably came due to the creators plea to save the WP page from Twitter. Regardless, this article does not meet WP guidelines/policies, and should be deleted. Angryapathy (talk) 17:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snide or not, Jamie is right - this is not a vote, but rather a discussion, and without a rationale for the opinion, why should the closing admin take it into account? SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was actually intending to ask the editor for their own sake, so s/he may have the opportunity to defend their view with more weight. Some people may not know, but when others are agreeing with the label "non-notable", a single "keep" vote with no reason won't contribute to the discussion. Regards, JamieS93 14:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Kennedy

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

was undelted as a contested prod but this is unsourced and it a bio of a nn unsuccessful politician. Doesn't meet core content requirements, V RS and BIO Spartaz Humbug! 21:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Kerachian

edit
Reza Kerachian (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 meeting WP:Notability (academics): Only an associate professor, and "Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient to satisfy Criterion 1." The fact that this is an autobiography and that the author included his full contact information leads me to think of this as self-promotion and a resume rather than as an encyclopedia article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total Drama Wiki

edit
Total Drama Wiki (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:WEB. No evidence found that this is notable Triplestop x3 20:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By any chance though that I could continue to improve the article while moving it back to my userspace? ☭Pickbothmanlol☭ 20:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

François Lejeune

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

Couldn't verify the existence of this person, so copyediting probably isn't worth the trouble. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Harmony (singing duo)

edit
Harmony (singing duo) (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 music act, known only for their appearance on a talent show. The article claims they have a record deal which may lead to future notability, but that would be speculation at the moment; WP:MUSIC requires a charted single or album, not just a record deal. I42 (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Per nom. But if someone can find a reference that actually says they're in the studio and can give a release date for an album, I would say keep.Pdcook (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They're nn. Petepetepetepete (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First of all, I did create the article, so there would be no question that I would want to protect my own article. I think the concerns you have is the notability, because I created the article after I found some news articles about the record deal, and I decided to make the article to publicise the record deal, rather than their journey on Britain's Got Talent. The article was given a proposed deletion in it's early days, but it was declined after Cunard (talk) mentioned "removed speedy, notability is asserted by the sources and by the duo's participation in Britain's Got Talent". If I had created this article in June, right after the show ended, it would have been deleted in less than a week as they weren't notable at that time. The fact that there are reliable sources and is still nominated for deletion is ridiculous (in my opinion). This article should be kept for now, and this decision should be closed after a single/album is announced. Hassaan19 (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you created the article to publicise the record deal you should read Wikipedia:Spam. A record deal in itself does not directly confer notability, nor does even releasing a record. WP:MUSIC requires a charted album or single. We do not keep articles in case notability is established in the future; we create them after the event. I42 (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salvation Pictures

edit
Salvation Pictures (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 can't find significant coverage for this studio. ☭Pickbothmanlol☭ 19:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm almost tempted to just speedy delete both of these as self aggrandizing promotion, but since I've already commented here I'll leave that for any other admin who happens by. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm at it I should also note that I had to chop out a significant portion of the article because it was copy/pasted from the companies website. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The clear opinion here is that there are insufficient reliable sources to show notability. The argument that blogs can show notability for software may have merit, but this is not the place to determine that. Kevin (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SUPER (software)

edit
SUPER (software) (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 non-notable, uncited article has had various tags placed on it for two years. PROD was removed by an IP address without addressing the issues. The software has minor mentions in publications from books.google, and scholar.google.com, but they mention the software being used, not articles directly significant discussion about the software. This article functions as promotion for the software. Wikipedia is not a software directory, proof of existence is not notable. Miami33139 (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious!!!!! do you really want to delete this page!! Why don't you delete the whole wikipedia then go and have a chilled beer!!

FFmpeg official website has listed SUPER as part of the FFmpeg-Based Projects: http://ffmpeg.org/projects.html

MEncoder official website has listed SUPER as related projects under Windows: http://www.mplayerhq.hu/design7/projects.html

Microsoft official website identifies SUPER as Vista compatible: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/compatibility/windows-vista/Search.aspx?type=Software&s=SUPER erightsoft

SUPER(C) is available for download from various sites:

  1. http://www.01net.com/telecharger/windows/Multimedia/encodeurs_et_decodeurs/fiches/33476.html
  2. http://www.afterdawn.com/software/video_software/video_encoders/super.cfm
  3. http://biblprog.org.ua/en/super/
  4. http://www.chip.de/downloads/SUPER-2009_17370353.html
  5. http://www.filehippo.com/download_super/
  6. http://www.free-codecs.com/download/super.htm
  7. http://www.freewaregeeks.com/?page=detail&get_id=43&category=38
  8. http://www.freshwap.net/finder/SUPER 2009 (Build 36) (Portable).html
  9. http://www.freewarefree.net/audio-and-video/1923/super-2009-build-35/
  10. http://www.get2use.com/download/super/v2009-build-35
  11. http://www.gigafree.net/media/conv/super.html
  12. http://majorgeeks.com/Super_d5117.html
  13. http://www.mininova.org/tor/2180960
  14. http://www.mpegx.com/view.php?detail=2539
  15. http://www.softpedia.com/get/Multimedia/Video/Encoders-Converter-DIVX-Related/SUPER.shtml
  16. http://super.softonic.de/
  17. http://www.techspot.com/download.php
  18. http://www.videohelp.com/tools/SUPER
  19. http://videosaver.ru/blog/2007-11-08-3
  20. http://wiki.winboard.org/index.php/SUPER:_.FLV-_oder_.MOV_Videos_umwandeln
  21. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=SUPER erightsoft —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.108.44.41 (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the previous comment—the expression "as part of the FFmpeg-Based Projects" is slightly misleading, as it suggests that SUPER has "officially" something to do with the FFmpeg project. The fact is that SUPER simply uses components from FFmpeg and the FFmpeg website simply lists projects that use components from FFmpeg. That's all. The "If you would like to see another project added here, please send an email..." sentence explains that basically anyone who decides to use something from FFmpeg can send them an e-mail an they will list their project there. So it does not really say anything about notability whatsoever.
The same with the MPlayer website. Again, it simply lists projects that use their software in some way. If there is a new project that decides to use their software, they can list it there, too, whether it's notable or not.
As for the download links—for example the Mininova link. So someone put SUPER for download via BitTorrent. What exactly does it say about its notability?
And one more thing. The SUPER article has been constantly edited by anonymous users in exactly the same way. Someone put something less flattering about the product into the article, and then there was the anonymous IP address that removed it. And again, under a new anonymous IP address.
When the AfD template was put there, again, an anonymous user removed it (violating the Wikipedia deletion policies), when the template was restored, a new anonymous IP address removed it again... It always happens in the same hysterical fashion as shown above by 59.108.44.41. Which to me suggests that it could be a possible sock puppet who has an interest in having the SUPER article in Wikipedia (possibly the SUPER creator?)—J. M. (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever tried to send an e-mail to FFmpeg or MEncoder so they can list their your project?
Do you consider this as a serious argument/statement, Do you really under-estimate to this extend the process for adding a product to their list. It is like just send us an email and we'll add any software you want! come on..
besides, 59.108.44.41 did not "invent" the term [FFmpeg-Based Projects], it is in fact the title of their page on the left upper corner!
Have you seen this page, do like to talk about it? http://ffmpeg.org/shame.html
Finding links to notable products via BitTorrent does not constitute a prejudice to product itself!!
here's ONLY 4 examples amongst thousand others...
http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=microsoft windows Vista&cat=0
http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=microsoft office&cat=0
http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=norton antivirus&cat=0
http://www.mininova.org/search/?search=adobe photoshop
However if you really believe that SUPER creators are able to manage and put all these listed download links on various notable download sites, then they must have a real good reason to convince and are really proposing a good freeware otherwise it wouldn't be there.
As for this YouTube link http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=SUPER erightsoft it shows the large number of happy users that are themselves happily promoting and sharing SUPER by pointing out its features through a video presentation.
What is notability? how do you evaluate it? based on which criteria? who decides? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.131.74.155 (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I did not object to the term "FFmpeg-Based projects". I said the sentence was misleading and explained why. Secondly, I did not say the BitTorrent link meant SUPER is bad, I only said it was completely irrelevant. It does not say anything about the notability at all.
And thirdly, I suspect 213.131.74.155 is yet another sock puppet. The same writing style, the same mistakes, the same tone, unsigned anonymous comment, it is the same thing as the numerous other single-purpose IP addresses that only ever do a single (favourable, of course) edit to the SUPER article (or this discussion) and then disappear forever. And then a new single-purpose IP address appears that does exactly the same thing... And so on. So I believe that all these anonymous IP addresses come from someone related to the product, and they just keep using new and new anynomous IP addresses to make it look like there are more of them. Sock puppetting is strictly forbidden in Wikipedia and users can get blocked indefinitely for that. It only tends to confirm Miami33139's suspicion that the primary purpose of the article is advertising the product.—J. M. (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Here's a bunch of similar candidates for AfD They are loaded with single-purpose IP addresses during editing same case as for SUPER, I think they all deserve to be eliminated, exterminated.

  1. X264
  2. Gordian Knot (software)
  3. Virtualdub
  4. Avidemux
  5. AviSynth
  6. MediaCoder
  7. BSPlayer
  8. Audacity
  9. VobSub
  10. YAMB
  11. MP4Box
  12. LAME
  13. Avid Technology
  14. VLC media player


  • Delete. Could not find significant independent coverage, and none has been forthcoming. Quantpole (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Super has saved my ass many times (read: yes, I'm a bit biased), and IMHO the reason it's so hard to find references which mention it is because of the ultra generic name. Even CNET brands it as "SUPER Video Converter". The references are out there though, here, here and a video tutorial at associatedcontent which WP is not letting me link to :(. Unfortunately, yesh, I would say about 90% of the web mentions of the software appear on forums where people are asking questions on how to use it or suggesting it to other users; an underground hit if anything. Still, it is surely notable enough for an article, but it should definitely be trimmed for WP:listcruft. GreyWyvern (talk) 00:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The second link clearly fails to meet notability requirements, as it is a blog, and blogs are generally not reliable sources—the notability guideline says a topic has to recieve "significant coverage in reliable sources" to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.—J. M. (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I second GreyWyvern is his opinion about Super. I believe that its current wikipedia page is clearly informative without any typical advertisement look. The page goes by listing the supported input and output formats and the internally used Command-Line encoders. It requires though slight trimming, but it definitely has its place on Wikipedia.

I started using Super since the earlier versions in 2005, the product is pretty much straight forward and easy to use yet extremely handy to encode multimedia files from one format to another. Searching erightsoft in Google or YouTube leads to hundreds of hits, Super by erightsoft won the third position in CHIP German Magazine on March 2009, please keep it! http://www.chip.de/artikel/Vergleichstest-Alleskonvertierer-8_35478393.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasay rewelra babe (talk • contribs) 10:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would argue for keep. I thought there was a notability guideline for software, but I couldn't find one. MahangaTalk 01:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Correct searching leading to relevant results is achieved when searching for "eRightSoft SUPER" instead of "SUPER (software)" in news, books, scholar, images.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.228.27.4 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 12 November 2009
    • — 201.228.27.4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Using your search, I get 1 hit on google books, which leads to a book about Adobe Flash. I assume this software has some minor mention in that. I get three hits on google scholar, none of which seem to be about this software. No hits on google news. Can you please tell me show, directly, some good sources about this software? Miami33139 (talk) 16:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And where exactly are those "relevant results"? Let me repeat the Wikipedia rules: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Now, what we have here is people saying: "Keep, I like this product", or "Keep, there are relevant results", without showing those relevant results. Plus, yet another brand new anonymous single-purpose IP address appears to make yet another unsigned comment... One and the same person?—J. M. (talk) 16:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What most of the "keep" !voters fail to grasp is that we do not judge notability by blog mentions or Google hit counts, we require non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Anyone can publish a blog. JBsupreme (talk) 00:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep for this class of subject, perhaps blog mentions are the relevant criteria. They show widespread use, and that is one of tyhe ways in which something becomes significant enough that people would look for it in an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that what I am proposing as a reason could be regarded as an exception to the notability criteria. DGG ( talk ) 23:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is "this class of subject" and why should blog mentions be relevant? Software tools already get special treatment on Wikipedia because of systemic bias. I don't understand the rationale that a GUI wrapper for some command line tools has something inherently special about it. Miami33139 (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 18:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Martinez (American football)

edit
Jose Martinez (American football) (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:ATHLETE as he hasn't played professionally. Tavix |  Talk  18:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of bands from St. Louis

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

WP:LISTCRUFT; as it is impossible to determine all the bands from St. Louis and this is better served as a category. Tavix |  Talk  18:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A red link indicates the absence of an article, not necessarily a lack of notability. Since there are thousands of notable bands and musicians that do not yet have articles in this encyclopedia, lists containing redlinks to articles that are yet to be written are perfectly valid. Categories, on the other hand, can only contain links to articles that exist, so serve a different purpose.--Michig (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the classic indiscriminate, unsourced list. It's taken for granted that every band in America wants to make its own Wikipedia its webhost, and band articles get nominated all the time. And because it's nothing more than a bulletin board for posting the name of one's own musically-inclined group of people, it doesn't provide any information other than that some blue links, and a lot of redlinked "click here to create an article about your band" invitations. Mandsford (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hardly indiscriminate as it's about a very specific set of articles. There are undoubtedly a lot of bands listed who are not sufficiently notable, but that can easily be remedied by removing them. A short summary can also be added for each entry to give some context.--Michig (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 upon author request. JamieS93 23:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tondino's Paradox

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

Essay based on original research. Malleus Fatuorum 18:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Freud

edit
Sally Freud (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 came across this article whilst I was looking up australian authors for my wife, and I don't think it meets the notability guidelines. Firstly, it's an unreferenced BLP, and there are very few google hits for Sally Freud - a google search for '"Sally Freud" caged'- not something I wish to discover pictures of, by the way, but the title of one of her novels! then there are just 246 hits, whilst her book "the middle of nowhere" gets just 96. Me and my wife been looking at the notability guideline for authors, and I don't think this article passes - and neither does she. We were just talking about it whilst she was making my ham sandwiches and so I thoght I'd send it along to AFD. Let me know what ya all think - but as the nominator, we are going to be going for a solid delete. All the best, Hands of gorse, heart of steel (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3o Gymnasio Agias Paraskevis

edit
3o Gymnasio Agias Paraskevis (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 notability, no encyclopedic value Constantine ✍ 17:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Closure: You might have been hitting that XFD tab too many times on the same article? ☭Pickbothmanlol☭ 17:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, issue was resolved. ☭Pickbothmanlol☭ 17:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Eastman III

edit
Rob Eastman III (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. None of the references are reliable sources that support notability. Running for congress in and of itself does not make one notable. No Google hits supporting notability. There is some mionor coverage of his company's products, but that does not translate to this individual being notable. Singularity42 (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy delete as a WP:CSD#G12 - copyvio of various pages in the domain www.trainingplace.com. Black Kite 19:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Learning Orientation Questionnaire

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

Blatant advertising and possibly in violation of copyright. ☆Pickbothmanlol☆ 17:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Optipictual Art

edit
Optipictual Art (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 art medium. Article claims it is only used by a single artist, who invented the medium (and Google reveals no returns for "Optipictual Art" other than this artist). Article tries to build a lot out of unreliable sources - i.e. busisness/artist directories, etc. The only two things that could possibly be considered independent and informative area a) the artist was interviewed by a magazine about her art medium, and b) a couple online art stores use the medium as a search category (although that could possibly be because the medium is defined by the artist selling the work, not the store acting as third-party). Neither supports notability, and there are no sources (either added to the article or through a Google search) that have reviewed or commented on this medium. Singularity42 (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 on Uncertainty theory delete the rest. Secret account 14:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertainty theory

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

Also:

Uncertain programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uncertain Logic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uncertain Differential Equation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uncertainty programming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uncertain Set Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uncertain Process (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uncertain Calculus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Uncertain Entailment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by User:Good Olfactory at 22:04 22 November UTC)
Uncertain Set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) andy (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain Inference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) andy (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain Differential Equation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (added by Gandalf61 (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC) )[reply]

"Uncertainty theory" may be the next best thing since Relativity but so far it seems to have had little impact. I can find very few relevant ghits and almost nobody seems to talk about it apart from its creator, who apparently came up with the idea two years ago. I'm proposing that a set of almost identical stubs, recently created by an spa should be deleted because they are all unreferenced original research, failing WP:OR, WP:N and WP:VER. There's also a suspicion that one of the main aims of these articles is to promote the author's recent book on the subject, contrary to WP:SPAM. andy (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note the url orsc.edu.cn is the only reference given in these articles. It's been flagged as possible spam - see here
  • Comment. References to a number of reliable independent sources have been added to the article, that clearly demonstrate the notability outside of Wikipedia. (Also, a book in the third edition published by one of the most respected scientific publishers in the world already does establish notability "outside of wikipedia".) Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the thread at WikiProject Mathematics I have already mentioned a third-party citation from outside China. [27] It may well be that this theory has significant impact within China although it is still hardly known outside. Several experienced members of the maths project are watching the article and will see what happens.
The suspicion that this is about promotion of the book seems to be unfounded. All academics want to promote their theory in one way or another, there is nothing wrong with that. The book in question has had 3 editions. The books by this author have been around for a while, and there are no traces of advertising on Amazon.com. [28] I have looked at the online version of the Springer book, and on first sight it seems to meet the usual standards of this publisher and well worth reading.
It's hard to assess notability at this time, because coverage may be mostly in Chinese. Please leave this matter to the mathematics project, so that we avoid a combination of biting and systemic bias. The topic warrants at least a short mention in related topics such as fuzzy measure theory, so in any case outright deletion (rather than a redirect) wouldn't be appropriate. For redirecting we don't need an AfD, which is why the discussion in the WikiProject did not lead to this AfD. In case of any conflicts with the article creator we could still propose the article again as a last resort.
Concerning the other articles: These stubs are hardly useful. If they don't get any serious content soon (which seems possible), they need to be turned into redirects to uncertainty theory. Hans Adler 16:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you're not sure about its notability - and nobody else in that discussion is either - then it's not notable. Why? Because notability requires proof and there is none here.
In general I'd agree that something technical should be left to a technical group such as the maths project, but in this case it's pretty clear what the situation is (and btw I have a degree in maths so I understand where you're coming from). No independent sources, very few ghits. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that it fails WP:N.
The onus is on the author to prove that the article should be kept. andy (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you followed the Amazon link above? 3 Springer books and 1 Wiley book don't look like a complete lack of notability to me, even though they are all by the same author. It's also possible that this is merely a variant of something better known under a different name. I am not particularly interested in this topic, so I am not going to defend the article beyond what I have already said. I left a note in the WPM thread about this AfD. Hans Adler 17:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since they're all by the same author, who's the guy that invented the theory, then they don't count towards establishing notability. [29] lists a total of seven books, every one of which is authored by Baoding Liu. I've done a lot of hunting on the web and can find nothing that's been published on this subject by anyone other than him or his students from the same institution. As I said in the nomination the theory might be notable, but there's no proof of that and try as I might I can't find any. andy (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but possibly a merge of some of the satellite articles is warranted. MathSciNet lists 17 matches with "Uncertainty theory" in the title, many of which are independent of Liu's work. I don't have time to format these properly right now, but they do establish notability beyond the Chinese school. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. "Uncertainty theory" may deserve an article, but the current "theory" article shouldn't be a part of it. On the other hand, if the books are published by Springer that suggests that someone there thinks it's notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As an alternative, redirect (without merge) uncertain(ty) X to fuzzy X, and put a summary of the logic in the appropriate section (which I believe to be somewhere in fuzzy logic#Mathematical fuzzy logic). Unfortunately, the "main" article, uncertainty theory, doesn't correspond to an article named fuzzy theory, so we may have a GFDL problem. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As an alternative, delete and redirect uncertain(ty) X to fuzzy X, (where "fuzzy X" exists), and merge uncertainty theory to point to an item in fuzzy logic#Propositional fuzzy logics. Only the definition of the fuzzy "measure" seems suitable for the merge; the fuzzy random variables and distribution seem obvious consequences which apply to most forms of fuzzy logic. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect as this seems to be a similar concept to fuzzy logic/fuzzy set theory etc. Sussexonian (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: I've just added two more, very much the same as the others, and another editor has added another one. andy (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup the main article; possibly merge the others. It's unfortunate that we don't seem to have truly independent sources, but the number of publications from high-quality publishers makes it hard to believe the topic is not notable. --Trovatore (talk) 06:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's a certain element of the blind leading the blind here. Arthur Rubin has made what seems a very sensible suggestion which has some support, but it's based on an educated guess that "uncertainty theory" may be very similar to "fuzzy logic". I'd not object to redirecting all these articles (stubs, really) except that nobody seems sure that it really is another form of fuzzy logic. What if it's not? IMHO all we have for sure is a strong suspicion that it could be notable, but no independent evidence of that as required by WP policy, and another strong suspicion that even if it is notable it ought to be merged anyway. On that basis I don't see that it passes muster. andy (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The primary reason adduced for deletion seems to be based on the suspicion that independent sources do not exist. However, as I indicated above, there are independent sources. At the time I did not have time to format them. But here they are:
  • Dubois, Didier; Moral, Serafin; Prade, Henri (1998), "Belief change rules in ordinal and numerical uncertainty theories", Belief change, Handb. Defeasible Reason. Uncertain. Manag. Syst., vol. 3, Dordrecht: Kluwer Acad. Publ., pp. 311–392, MR 1743910311-392&rft.pub=Kluwer Acad. Publ.&rft.date=1998&rft_id=https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1743910#id-name=MR&rft.aulast=Dubois&rft.aufirst=Didier&rft.au=Moral, Serafin&rft.au=Prade, Henri&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 21" class="Z3988">
  • De Campos, Luis M.; Huete, Juan F.; Moral, Seraf\'\in (2000), "Independence in uncertainty theories and its applications to learning belief networks", Abductive reasoning and learning, Handb. Defeasible Reason. Uncertain. Manag. Syst., vol. 4, Dordrecht: Kluwer Acad. Publ., pp. 391–434, MR 1927641391-434&rft.pub=Kluwer Acad. Publ.&rft.date=2000&rft_id=https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1927641#id-name=MR&rft.aulast=De Campos&rft.aufirst=Luis M.&rft.au=Huete, Juan F.&rft.au=Moral, Seraf\'\in&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 21" class="Z3988">
  • Klir, George J. (1997), "Uncertainty theories, measures, and principles: an overview of personal views and contributions", Uncertainty: models and measures (Lambrecht, 1996), Math. Res., vol. 99, Akademie Verlag, pp. 27–43, MR 147800227-43&rft.pub=Akademie Verlag&rft.date=1997&rft_id=https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1478002#id-name=MR&rft.aulast=Klir&rft.aufirst=George J.&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 21" class="Z3988">
  • Resconi, Germano; Klir, George J.; Harmanec, David; St. Clair, Ute (1996), "Interpretations of various uncertainty theories using models of modal logic: a summary", Fuzzy Sets and Systems. An International Journal in Information Science and Engineering, 80 (1): 7–14, ISSN 0165-0114, MR 13899447-14&rft.date=1996&rft.issn=0165-0114&rft_id=https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1389944#id-name=MR&rft.aulast=Resconi&rft.aufirst=Germano&rft.au=Klir, George J.&rft.au=Harmanec, David&rft.au=St. Clair, Ute&rft_id=http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(95)00262-6&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 21" class="Z3988">
  • Golubtsov, P. V. (1994), "Fuzzy set theory as an uncertainty theory and decision-making problems in a fuzzy experiment", Rossiĭskaya Akademiya Nauk. Problemy Peredachi Informatsii, 30 (3): 47–67, ISSN 0555-2923, MR 129969047-67&rft.date=1994&rft.issn=0555-2923&rft_id=https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1299690#id-name=MR&rft.aulast=Golubtsov&rft.aufirst=P. V.&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 21" class="Z3988">
  • Resconi, Germano; Klir, George J.; St. Clair, Ute; Harmanec, David (1993), "On the integration of uncertainty theories", International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 1 (1): 1–18, ISSN 0218-4885, MR 12538501-18&rft.date=1993&rft.issn=0218-4885&rft_id=https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=1253850#id-name=MR&rft.aulast=Resconi&rft.aufirst=Germano&rft.au=Klir, George J.&rft.au=St. Clair, Ute&rft.au=Harmanec, David&rft_id=http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218488593000024&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 21" class="Z3988">
  • Oblow, E. M. (1987), "O-theory---a hybrid uncertainty theory", International Journal of General Systems. Methodology, Applications, Education, 13 (2): 95–106, ISSN 0308-1079, MR 091439695-106&rft.date=1987&rft.issn=0308-1079&rft_id=https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=914396#id-name=MR&rft.aulast=Oblow&rft.aufirst=E. M.&rft_id=http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03081078708934960&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 21" class="Z3988">
  • Vladimirskiĭ, È. I.; Kiyasbeĭli, Sh. A.; Shishonok, N. A. (1986), "Uncertainty theory in the realization of problems of the reliability of complex systems", Decision-making methods and systems. Applied problems in the analysis of solutions in technical systems (Russian), Riga: Rizhsk. Politekhn. Inst., pp. 17–21, MR 097977217-21&rft.pub=Rizhsk. Politekhn. Inst.&rft.date=1986&rft_id=https://mathscinet.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=979772#id-name=MR&rft.aulast=Vladimirskiĭ&rft.aufirst=È. I.&rft.au=Kiyasbeĭli, Sh. A.&rft.au=Shishonok, N. A.&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 21" class="Z3988">
These are just some of the relevant papers on MathSciNet with "Uncertainty theory" in the title. Many more papers can be found with a wider search that includes the abstracts and reviews. I hope this lays to rest any belief that keep votes are based on "suspicion". Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of those citations are to publications that seem to pre-date the alleged invention of the theory by Baoding Liu. There are many theories that deal with uncertainty, but the question is whether this particular capital-U capital-T Uncertainty Theory is something notable that merits an article. Despite this afd none of the authors of the articles have added a single independent reference. andy (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know which year you are basing this on, but you can't take the year 2007 mentioned in the article for that. I guess it refers to explosion of "uncertain X" terms that we are observing with the satellite articles. We are dealing with a Chinese speaker who is struggling with the English language. Apparently the Uncertainty Theory Laboratory was founded in 1998 [30], Liu's Wiley book "Uncertain Programming" came out the next year, and in 2004 there was the first edition of the Springer book "Uncertainty Theory: An Introduction to its Axiomatic Foundations". I agree to the extent that most of the sources above probably don't refer to this precise notion, but it's hard to say this with absolute confidence without checking the details. Hans Adler 13:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think the AfD should be closed as no consensus. The "element of the blind leading the blind" factor is no basis on which to delete an article. The above references easily show that the topic is notable, although as I have already indicated, I agree with Rubin's solution to merge these articles into "fuzzy X" whenever possible. Trovatore also has a good suggestion: just keeping the one main article and redirecting the rest. Whatever happens, though, an AfD where 90% of the commentators have been unable to assess accurately the notability of a subject because of their unfamiliarity with it is clearly problematic, and it is not an ideal place to make these kind of content decisions. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I disagree. The point is that articles have to justify their inclusion. There is, if you like, a presumption of guilt. WP:FAILN gives some clear guidance which this afd is following, and simply giving up isn't a terribly good alternative. At this stage in the afd any of the recommended outcomes is possible: tag it, merge it or delete it. The mathematically inclined contributors to the debate seem to be tending towards the latter two options. That's fair enough. andy (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well... the references given above can easily be added to the article. Will that "justify the inclusion" of the article? It will certainly render the reasons proposed for deletion totally bogus. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification (I hope). The good professor's first paper was published in 1996 according to his online bio. The International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems in which he has published many times was founded three years prior to that. He's also published in many other journals, mostly to do with fuzzy logic. So it seems clear that his theory falls within the general area of uncertainty or fuzziness as a whole, which is of course a subject that he did not invent. Without seriously expert intervention we mere mortals have no way of knowing if his theory is considered notable within the fuzzy community (sounds like a fun bunch of people!) - unless the authors of these articles provide some clear evidence. Until then they should be treated cautiously and either deleted or merged. andy (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should remind you that the evidence of notability presented at an AfD can be fairly cursory, because AfD is a very blunt instrument. The above references should be ample to convince "mere mortals" that the topic is notable. We don't usually take a default position of "delete" if experts do not suddenly materialize to examine all of the evidence presented at an AfD and affirm that it supports the article as presently written. If, in the future, an expert shows up who disputes the relevance of these references above, then he or she is certainly welcome to rewrite the article, or take the article back to AfD if appropriate and make a well-reasoned informed case against it. While I hope it is the former that happens, I certainly wouldn't object to the latter. But it isn't fair to keep moving the goalposts, as is being done in this AfD. At first, there were no ghits. Then a bunch of very reliable sources were produced, that may or may not be precisely relevant to the article, as presently written. But those were dismissed as irrelevant on rather dubious chronological grounds. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody is moving the goalposts. There are very few ghits, so there's no evidence of notability to be found that way. The articles as originally written cited no independent sources. A bunch of independent reliable sources were indeed found but reliable proof of what? The chronological grounds for dismissing them weren't spurious - the theory was allegedly invented in 2007 (or maybe 2005) but the sources pre-date that by as much as a decade, so they can scarcely be proof of the notability of the theory, can they? What they show is that people have been using the term "uncertainty theory" for a long time but not that "Uncertainty Theory" as per the original version of this article. I see you've now rewritten it in such a way as to relegate Prof Liu to the sidelines. That totally changes the meaning of the article and probably obviates the need for deletion, assuming the original author doesn't change it back. Let's leave it a couple of days and see what other people think. andy (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latest round of objections centers on the idea that there is some kind of Uncertainty Theory (with a capital "T"). Although the article had been written from this somewhat naive point of view, the fact is that people have been studying these things for quite some time from a variety of points of view—and I am by no means an expert. I disagree that it completely changes the meaning of the article—the article was likely written by a student first encountering these ideas through Liu's book, which the author naturally takes to be the definitive account (it is not, really, but we should be willing to forgive that oversight). At any rate, there are many potential sources that treat this topic from a variety of points of view, so there is definitely room for expansion of the article beyond the views espoused by the Chinese group. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the main article at least, notability for it seems plainly to have been demonstrated. Paul August ☎ 17:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am a bit alarmed at the suggestion of mixing in references to "uncertainty theory" from mathematics papers in general. Liu obviously has a well-elaborated theory; if that theory ought to have an article (which I think it should), then the article should be specifically about that theory, and not about other possibly-related things that someone has called uncertainty theory. I'm worried about another mess like definable real number. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regular number (don't be confused by the fact that there currently exists an article called regular number — the original article was deleted and the existing one was rewritten from scratch). --Trovatore (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one -- probably uncertainty theory as it seems the most general title, and let the specialists decide what references belong. There almost certainly should also be an article on Liu. DGG ( talk ) 16:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newsflash! The original author or one of his avatars seems to object to Sławomir Biały's changes and has reverted to an even more obscure and POV version of what it was before, with no mention of anyone other than Liu. I think that if it is kept it may have to be protected. I'll remind these dissenting editors to participate in the afd. This is actually getting quite weird. andy (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for all your advice. I am improving my article with my friends, and I will make the inference clear. If you check the article, you'll find they have been impoved a lot. There is no cheat in all the articles. We want Uncertainty Theory to be known by more people, so they can do more help to daily life, just as probability does. Besides, probability is unaccepted to the mathematicians before 1930s, but it is hot in finnance now; and we are sure that uncertainty theory will have a widely use someday. Thank you! Please don't delete my article, they will be improved soon.Pingfanlj (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you all for your advice! i have read all the discussion above. I want to say something.(My English is poor, so maybe some sentences are hard to understand.) 1)Baoding Liu have studied Uncertainty Theory for many years before 2007, and write some articles above it. However, he found something a little wrong in his theory, so he now have been redefining some defination about his theory since 2007. 2)It is slow to link to http://www.en.wikipedia.org in my university, and it often fails. This is why i write the article now(Beijing Time 1:47, time to sleep), as it link fast now. 3)I creat my account in wiki

about a week ago, so i am unfamiliar with writing an article, this is why i didn't write references the first time. 4) My friends are improving the articles. However, we are all student, so we don't have much time to do such a job, this is why the articles are improved slowly. 5)MR2515179[31],Dobois do some research in fuzzy theory with different methods. As uncertainty theory is not perfect now, so the method to study it may be different, and someone(unwill to open to other methods)may say others are wrong, just so so. Thank you all! Please don't delete my articles, thank you!--Pingfanlj (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep uncertainty theory, delete the rest, per WP:UNDUE. This is a promotional attempt to give undue prominence to a topic by creating a large number of spin off articles. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Wikipedia is not the place for advertising obscure mathematical theories. All the citations to his work seem to be by himself and his group in China. The page also fails to give any context or explanation of this theory. Fences&Windows 17:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all or translate them and move them to the Chinese language wiki. The references provided above prove that something called "Uncertainty Theory" (UT) exists, but it is not clear if UT is clearly defined, nor is it clear if this article is about the "real" UT. Since the article claims that UT was invented in 2007, but the references provided date back to the mid-90's, my gut feeling is that this article is not accurately reflecting the sources that were found for it. Just because we can search for "uncertainty theory" and find math articles with "uncertainty theory" in the title doesn't mean that we've found a reference that backs up the material in these articles. I say the articles get deleted, and if someone wants to rewrite the article based on multiple independent sources, then so be it. At this point, the articles appear to need a nearly complete rewrite, so deletion is probably the best thing we can do for UT. SnottyWong talk 00:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all of these into Uncertainty theory. As others have noted above, the topic is notable, and good sources can be found, but having several articles violates WP:UNDUE. Bearian (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, G3. Non-admin closure. Rnb (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naggro

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

Dictionary-like entry of a slang neologism. Malleus Fatuorum 17:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kaicho R. David Farzinzad

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

only personal bad speaking Swissk9 (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 19:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is architecture

edit
What is architecture (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 and contested redirect. Unreferenced essay. RadioFan (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Roddy

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

Previously deleted by PROD. Article fails WP:ATH as he has not played at a fully-professional level of football. Also fails WP:GNG due to no sufficient third-party coverage. --Jimbo[online] 13:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

North Hudson Park UFO sightings

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

Redirect, Merge, or Delete Could be merged or redirected into North Bergen, New Jersey. Eh, it's an option, but without real sources, I could get behind just deleting it as well. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa George

edit
Vanessa George (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 article fails WP:BLP1E; the subject is only described in reliable sources in terms of this child molestation event or the individual parts of the event and therefore cannot have a standalone article on Wikipedia. NW (Talk) 11:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per author request. JamieS93 16:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Netsniff-ng

edit
Netsniff-ng (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 software. No significant coverage. Pontificalibus (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pontificalibus, this software has been developed internally at the Max-Planck-Institute and recently been released Open Source (and in a few weeks it will be integrated into the Debian/Linux project). It would be a pity to delete this, because this technique used is rarely known, most of the sniffers uses the standard libpcap-api which is not that performant (on high throuput packets will be dropped because of lack of processing resources... the reason for this is that the packets (buffers) have to be copied from userspace to kernelspace and back again which is very time intensive). Of course, I am willing to point this more out if you change your mind. Thanks.

Comment Whilst this may be a wonderful peice of software, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The subject of any article needs to have significant coverage in reliable sources. Maybe in the future this software will have lots of people writing about it, so we can then have lots of references to use in the article to show it is notable. However at this early stage I can't find significant third-party coverage. --Pontificalibus (talk) 12:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Okay, sorry, I forgot to add the Ref. As 'third-party coverage' it was part of a talk/proceedings at the international Open Source Monitoring Conference in Nueremberg, Germany and it has been presented to professionals in this area with a very positive feedback. (http://www.netways.de/en/osmc/y2009/uebersicht/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netcrash87 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete, default to keep. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REM (Real Estate Magazine)

edit
REM (Real Estate Magazine) (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 trade publication. Pontificalibus (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Circulation of over 40,000 suggests it might be notable, but since article appears to be created by family member of magazine owner, i'm not going to do their work for them. -- Willmolls: You need to find coverage of this publication in other sources, like newspapers, news reports, books, etc., see, e.g., Red Pepper (magazine) which was nominated for deletion earlier this week, and was saved after it was improved (more discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Red_Pepper_(magazine). Coverage like that would show this publication is notable. If you need more help understanding wikipedia's policies, come to my talk page and I'll try to help If I can.--Milowent (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you Milowent. Yes, I have a personal stake in the article as it's a family business, but I'd prefer that wasn't a known factor here (because your only evidence is my user name, which is an embarrassing giveaway :-P). For the record I'm not entirely new to Wikipedia, I'm aware of its policies, and I feel I've followed the guidelines thoroughly. I'm not writing this article for the novelty of it, I'm writing it because I feel this is a notable subject - and me having a personal stake in the article shouldn't be a reason its deleted if it hasn't affected the article's quality. I've gone about this as objectively as possible.

I'm afraid unlike the "Red Pepper", I'm unlikely to find any secondary news articles about a Canadian trade publication, especially in a UK daily. However, I would argue this is a notable subject as it is the only trade journal serving the real estate industry in Canada, it has existed for 20 years, and it circulates nationally. Any article on a Canadian real estate subject would likely cite this magazine, but it is more difficult to find media talking about other media, especially in the case of a trade journal (rather than simply a general magazine). Finding secondary sources will not be as easy as it was for the Red Pepper.

Some examples of other trade journals that are (apparently) considered notable (in that they haven't been nominated for deletion): Playback (magazine), The Engineer (magazine). They also cite the primary source, and (unlike this page) have no secondary sources. However they still exist as Wikipedia articles (likely) because they are considered notable in their industry. There should be no double standard in deleting this article, then.

That said, I will continue to search for secondary sources (though it should be noted I have already listed some). Given the evidence I've laid out I don't think there is enough of an argument for deleting this article. --Willmolls (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Thanks to my Lexis-Nexis account with Ryerson University I've found an article citing REM from the Toronto Star. I'll add it now. Thanks for your help guys! Willmolls (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've added a Toronto Star article citing REM, can we officially call this subject notable and end this deletion discussion? --Willmolls (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I do see references to this magazine out there (though not in-depth profiles, which is often the case for this type of publication), and the circulation information seems legit.--Milowent (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 10:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:NME for "Newspapers, magazines and journals", Real Estate Magazine qualifies under this attribute: "significant publications in ethnic and other non-trivial niche markets". The Canadian real estate industry is a non-trivial niche market, and this publication is significant in that it is the only of its kind to serve it. Yet again I have to refer you to Playback (magazine), The Engineer (magazine) as examples of articles that are considered notable for the same reason.--Willmolls (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that real estate could be considered to be a "niche" market in any country. For that to apply, there would have to be some qualification such as "listed buildings," or "ex-celebrity-homes." Guinness (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Combs Field Airport

edit
Combs Field Airport (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 airport no longer exists. The former airport's FAA code has been reassigned to a heliport at a hospital complex. The former airport is not sufficiently notable to be saved as a "former airport". The heliport at the current hospital complex is not sufficiently notable to convert the airport article to a heliport article. Therefore, I believe the best alternative is to simply delete the article. Canglesea (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, or rename to "Norton Audubon Hospital Heliport" (source) if some notability can be established (which I doubt). The Heliport has the same FAA code as the former airport. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Notability is not temporary. I don't know what sort of guidelines there are for airports, but if defunct licensed radio stations are notable enough for inclusion I don't see why an airport wouldn't qualify as well riffic (talk) 16:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 10:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus was that the passing mentions of the game were insufficient to show notability. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 05:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck, Marry, Kill

edit
AfDs for this article:
Fuck, Marry, Kill (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 had tags for citation for notability for over 18 months and it doesn't seem to have improved at all. I see no attempt at resources beyond societal satire, and the result is no notability since things are happy left with a citation needed tag. A mention on a few "shock value" media programs isn't going to cut it. Ironically, a mention in The Onion is as close to a "reasonable" source here to show its worth, but it's only a mention in the caption of a fake photograph. Oh, and even after that all I suppose we'd need verification(?!) of it all. Fun. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator's comment: Apparently this had an AfD more than 5 years ago? Huh. Seems to have been no consensus, with reasons for keep peaking at "children's folklore" similar to "rock, paper, scissors". Okay. The article doesn't even mention that. Well, it is as you see before you. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic Guinness (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a basic Google search returns nothing but hits to varous personal blogs and forums. While these clearly show that the game exists, I don't think they are enough to establish notablility. There are no sources that talk about the game. A Google News search gives no results. Blueboar (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 2 of the 3 refs provided dont have any content related to this game. i also could not find any significant mention on google outside urban dic, etc. wed probably need a published survey of teens/preteens and their current games, along the lines of "lore and language of schoolchildren" by the opies. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Since I have no idea how AfD worked 5 years ago I'll just assume it was an experiment at the time. One I'm very glad has been improved significantly since. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails notability guidelines, along with other policies. If anyway feels a redirect is appropriate then it can be created after deletion. Davewild (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chain of life

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

Strong delete. In fact, it should be speedied. This is just some rubbish that someone has made up. It has no credibility and is a blatant breach of WP:Notability, WP:CITE and WP:OR just for starters. --Jack | talk page 09:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...Um. Since I'm not even 100% certain what I'm supposed to get from this article, I'm not sure what to rate notability form. I'll go with WP:OR as an "official" reason as to how this can't possibly be notable, since the only things without sources might be the most common of common social happenings, and this doesn't doesn't fit in that category. I do admit it would appear to be verifiable due to the pictures, however. It might have been CSD-able, but no risks here. The only category it would come close to is A3, and things of this length aren't usually marked for that. Well. Can we WP:DUCK test to a newly-established and 100% enforced WP:HUH? that I just invented? Yes. Let's do that. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable silliness. Agree with Datheisen that going through AFD doesn't hurt anything on this one. Photos are not sufficient in any way to establish notability without outside support. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Not notable and probably not safe.--Digthepast (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 10:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoran Lazetich

edit
Zoran Lazetich (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 SyG (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As I said at Wikipedia talk:CHESS#Notable?, we have deleted as non-notable at least two people with the FIDE Master title (Charles Weldon and Boris Baczynskyj (sp.?)), and Lazetich doesn't even have that. Although USCF has awarded him the Life Master title, his current FIDE rating is indicated as being below 2200 (the minimum for National Master level), giving him a ranking (among the small minority of players who have FIDE ratings) of only number 26,901 in the world (to verify this, click on the external link at the bottom of the article). His FIDE rating progress chart shows that his peak rating, in January 2000, was only 2217. There's no indication that he's ever written anything. His tournament results (Connecticut State Champion once, and Sacramento City Champion several times) are only mildly impressive, and there's no indication that any of his students have become grandmasters or anything like that. He appears to be no more notable than Pete Karagianis, who was just deleted by unanimous vote. (I realize it's not a "vote" technically, but you know what I mean.) Karagianis had been Iowa State Champion a couple of times and had written some articles. The notability of someone like Viktors Pupols is questionable to my mind, but at least Pupols once beat Bobby Fischer, beat Yasser Seirawan many times (including, I believe, after Seirawan became a grandmaster), and Larry Parr wrote a book about Pupols. The article indicates nothing notable about Lazetich. Krakatoa (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Australian Idol (season 7)#Sabrina Batshon. The keep arguments based on limited recent press coverage and her fan base are weak, and the argument that she doesn't pass WP:MUSIC is well argued. There is material here that would be lost in a redirect, so my interpretation of the debate is a merge. Fences&Windows 17:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Batshon

edit
AfDs for this article:
Sabrina Batshon (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 page has been previously deleted, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sabrina Batshon. This page has been recreated because of a brief appearance on reality television show Australian Idol. This appearance alone does not assert notability, as per the exclusion of a separate Wikipedia article for most of the contestants on Australian Idol, with notable exceptions of winners and contestants who have had charted, successful record careers. Other assertions of notability (as discussed in the previous deletion discussions) are a mention in the speech of a politician and performances at talent shows at RSL's, which are local, town-wide competitions. Meadia coverage has been incidental to the show, and non-reliable sources such as forum posts have been used. Subject is not notable per WP:MUSIC due to not having any charted music and not meeting any of the criterion. The only thing that makes it any different than the last deletion is the Australian Idol appearance, which was brief and insignificant. Hoogiman (talk) 12:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, find it totally reliable because of the Australian Idol appearence, why should American Idol's have articles and Australian Idol's not?. She has also won a lot of talent competition and her appearence was neither brief nor insignificant. Facha93 (talk) 02:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Talent competitions do not assert notability, especially local talent competitions. American Idol is the top rated television programme, and perhaps the winners and contestants are more culturally significant with more media coverage and charted singles of their performances on the show. The subject of this article does not pass WP:MUSIC and if you view Notable alumni on the Australian Idol article, very few non-top 2 Australian Idol contestants have their own articles, and if they do, they pass WP:MUSIC with charted singles, which are an indication of notability. The subject of this article has no charted music. It has been previously determined as per a previous deletion discussion that the subject is not notable, and several brief appearances on a television show does not make the subject any more notable. Per WP:BIO, trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. The sources of notability asserted on the article are trivial and related to the show itself. Given all of this, how is the subject notable?Hoogiman (talk) 03:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If u though a comment on my talk page will make me change my mind, you were wrong. Although it's true that she doesn't has any charted music, Idol hasn't finished and no alumnee has released any single before the show ends. I still think she is reliable and that she passes the notability status and if u don't think she passes now, in the future she will. 19:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)Facha93 (talk)
  • Comment: How does she pass the notability test? You still haven't given any single valid reason, and I have outlined in my original post why things such as local talent shows do not make the subject notable. Does she pass any of the critereon in WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC? I would argue all (which is very little) media coverage is trivial or incidental, and the subject is not currently notable. Even if it passes one or two criteria, this does not make the subject notable, with the may on the policy page. Note that it seems user lacks familiarity with the policies WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC or at least, in referencing them. Could you point out sections of Wikipedia policy that make this subject notable? Hoogiman (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
U're getting really annoying, she pasess the criteria in WP:MUSIC in number 9, 10 and 12. Facha93 (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In WP:MUSIC No. 9 is the only critereon that would be even remotely close for notability. Coming in 10th place in Australian Idol itself does not warrant notability, as per the only Australian Idol being notable the ones with a commercial release, listed in List of music releases from Australian Idol contestants. Luke Dickens, the runner-up of last year's competition is not notable enough for his own page, and to keep with the consistency of editorial concerning this subject, coming in 10th is not notable in itself. For No. 10, the compilation album for a choir has never charted and No. 12 would be a separate broadcast for this person. Once again, this article has been previously deleted, the only thing that has changed since last time is an appearance on idol, which given my reasons outlined above does not assert notability in itself. Subject is not currently a significant contributor to Australian music and is currently not notable. Hoogiman (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here are a couple more articles:

http://au.lifestyle.yahoo.com/who/celebrity-interviews/article/-/6190872/australian-idol-farewells-sabrina-batshon/

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/entertainment/tv/australian-idol-evictee-sabrina-batshon-declares-the-show-a-fake-and-needs-new-judges/story-e6frf9ho-1225780791280

Along with the Daily Telegraph coverage already cited, that's more than enough to satisfy criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 14:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Does a couple of articles assert notability? I'd assume that there's an obligation to cover idol and an interview is going to happen regardless.

[[35]] [[36]]

Places 11th and 12th got an interview on the same site (this news site interviews all idols), and I'd imagine news coverage in WP:MUSIC would be related to some kind of contribution to the field of music, as opposed to obligatory for a show.

Wait... it seems every idol in the Top 12 gets an interview from this site... does that make all of these idols notable now?

[[37]]

The second article you point out is sensationalist news for drama, and I'd argue that this article is not particularly extensive coverage. Like before, articles in the Herald Sun cover every idol, so I'm not convinced this asserts separate notability.
Now the critereon says: Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.
I would say these news articles are quite trivial to the show of Australian Idol. Are there any news sources that assert notability outside of a single appearance? If anything this only would denote inclusion on the Australian Idol page itself. It doesn't assert any particular contribution to music by this artist which asserts notability. Note the may in the top of WP:MUSIC... I believe it requires more than a couple of weekly-reserved-for-idol news articles to make a subject notable. Any significant non-idol coverage or coverage at all for that matter? Hoogiman (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment: I'd like to argue that contestants on these music shows are analogous to members of a band. It would be notable if contestants won the show and produced a record, but just like in a band, if there are so significant contributions outside the band to music, the subject is not notable. Similarly, all coverage of this subject relates to the progression of idol and if there is no contribution outside of idol, how is the subject worthy enough of their own article? Hoogiman (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The terms "trivial" and "non-trivial" are defined in WP:MUSICBIO:

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries[note 2] except for the following:

* Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising.[note 3] * Works comprising merely trivial coverage, such as articles that simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories. * Articles in a school or university newspaper (or similar) would generally be considered trivial but should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

The cited coverage therefore fits the definition of non-trivial: it is about the subject specifically rather than, for example, a mere list of which contestants progressed to particular stages of the competition; it goes into significant detail, and involves editorial input. The fact that the coverage in other media stems from her Australian Idol appearance does not in itself make it trivial: I would even argue that this strengthens rather than weakens the case for notability. Many TV viewers know of her and some will seek further information. Why should we restrict this when it is verifiable and complies with current policy as written? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps trivial is the wrong term that I used. I'll now point to WP:NOTNEWS in Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. I'd put this more along the lines of tabloid journalism, and as per my comment at 22:49, 16 November 2009, every subject on this show gets routine news coverage. Independently significant? I'd doubt it. I meant trivial in the sense of, incidental to a regular coverage of a show, not trivial in the sense that is on that page you pointed out. Also, note the may in the policy. Just because of about... ...three incidental news articles, most of which are tabloid-like does not assert notability. As per WP:NOTNEWS, this regular coverage (as outlines with the articles for EVERY contestant on the show) does not make the subject an independently notable person outside of the show. I'll ask this again... what makes this subject significant outside of the show that creates notability as a separate subject? There is none in this current point in time, which is why the subject is not notable. Hoogiman (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, the only reason for notability is the show itself, in which I will refer to my band/band member, TV show/TV contestant analogy. By your definition, any reality show participant who has even had minor coverage outside the show, or a recap conerning them is notable? The Amazing Race has had 334 contestants in the show's history, and every contestant has some form of coverage in relation to the show. (For example, interviews, which is one of your assertions of notability and recaps, which is another form of a news article you gave.) Now, because of this minor coverage... are all 334 contestants, despite more than 90 percent only being significant to the show itself, now notable subjects worthy of their own articles? I think WP:NOTNEWS might be the refutation for the sources you've listed. Hoogiman (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I beleive Sabrina does meet the Notability (music) criteria as is defined under sections 9 & 10:

9.Has won or 'placed' in a major music competition. 10.Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, 'performance in a television show' or notable film, inclusion on a notable 'compilation album', etc.

Sabrina headlined 2 songs, and performed alongside the Australian Girl's Choir and the National Boy's Choir for a Sony produced album "The Spirit Of Australia" Release Date: 10.11.00

"In November 1998 Song Zu produced the album "Australia's Christmas Spirit" on behalf of QANTAS, featuring the Australian Girl's Choir and the National Boy's Choir. The album went on to be a phenomenal commercial and public relations success, selling 71,000 copies and raising $410,000 for the Starlight Children's Foundation." http://www.sonymusic.com.au/artist/info.do?artistId=100346

Sabrina placed 10th in a major music compition, Australian Idol and hgad also won the McDonald’s Performing Arts Challenge, in the open age Contemporary Vocal solo section.

Just becuase none of the other idols have wiki pages doesnt mean anything, and in fact Ricki Lee Coulter and Paulini have wiki pages and they didnt win the show either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nymphonicz (talk • contribs) 08:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Firstly, the two artists you mentioned have successful, independent, charted commercial releases. Note this is a fundraiser album, and upon searching australian-charts.com, this said album has no entry and hence, has not charted. [[38]] That is my first point... perhaps the singles were presented to QANTAS passengers, but it does not seem to be significant commercial release. That being said, if it is, then it is the choir itself that is notable. Notice how on this catalogue page that you quote, there is no mention of Sabrina Batshon... ...at all? Just because one sings on two tracks, this is not strong enough to be an subject independent of a choir. What makes the figures of this publisher less reliable is how there is no record of this album charting. Notice the may on the policy page, and this argument treads a very fine line.
Secondly, the performing arts challenge seems to be a corporate-organised, non-notable competition. I'd compare the notability of this competition to any local talent quest. There seems to be barely any coverage of this subject. Secondly, 10th place is not notability in itself for a separate article. Read my comments above and I give many reasons for this, one of the ones I would point out is the band/band member analogy, and this subject is not notable separate of idol itself. The two other idols you mentioned have multiple albums. Notice how the runner-up last year is not notable enough for a separate page? Hoogiman (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't think this comment follows along with any of the discussion or reasons against proposed in this deletion discussion. How is she independently notable of Idol? How does she pass WP:MUSIC? How does she pass WP:BIO? 1. This article has been previously deleted, because the subject is not notable. 2. The only extra assertion of notability with the recreate is an Idol appearance, which is not notable enough to be worthy of an own page. A mention in the Australian Idol season page would suffice. Hoogiman (talk) 07:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You make some good points, but isn't it generally considered good practice to have separate linked articles rather than detailed sections in articles which whose length may become cumbersome? Contains Mild Peril (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Disagreement over whether the article passes the notability guidelines or not. Davewild (talk) 10:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss India CT

edit
Miss India CT (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. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Zero Google news hits. References provided appear to be either DVD sales sites or primary sources. RadioFan (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added more 3rd party references Wikiuser7777 (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 17:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there is a majority of people voicing keep opinions here reading the discussion reveals a split between whether the coverage is sufficient to establish notability or whether the coverage fails WP:NOT#NEWS. As such am closing as no consensus. Davewild (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Enforcing Peace

edit
For Enforcing Peace (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-governmental medal awarded by an organization with dubious notability. Has been deleted from ru-wiki already. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 07:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative Keep - it seems to be covered in Russian-language media: [39]; [40]; [41]. I don't read Russian, and so am relying on Google translations, but it appears to be somewhat notable. I'd be interested in knowing what arguments were put forward in the Russian AfD or equivalent. I am always hesitant to jump to deleting articles that depend on non-English sources. One of the wonderful things about Wikipedia is providing information on notable subjects that may not otherwise be available to readers who do not speak the language where the subject's notability is most often expressed. TJRC (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Information The Russian Wikipedia afd is here: [42]. Here's a Google translate (you'll need to go to the original to link to the pages cited).TJRC (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Medal "For peace enforcement"

Regional public organization with the enterprise for the production of symbols has established a medal. Sources other than the site organization is not given. The significance of the organization under a big question. Pessimist2006 08:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Add. Establishment of the awards was widely reported in the press [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. SashaT 10:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • X Delete a momentary interest in the press, but there is no encyclopedic value. Seelöwe 10:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • X Delete - no award, but a PR stunt. Wikipedia writes about the medals, but not their virtual display on websites or promotional campaigns, producers of symbols. In an article on the organization itself was looked would be appropriate .-- Vissarion 11:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • X Remove this medal has no significance .-- I. 15:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
  • X Delete. Not significantly ShinePhantom 08:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Outcome

Removed under discussion. EvgenyGenkin 01:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources provided by TJRC (talk · contribs) establish notability. Having reviewed the sources with Google Translation (see 1, 2, and 3), I have determined that the depth of coverage is enough to establish notability for this medal.

    In response to Óðinn (talk · contribs): notability is defined by whether or not a topic has received enough reliable sources. Because For Enforcing Peace has received this coverage, it not being a state decoration is irrelevant when deciding whether it meets Wikipedia's inclusion policy. Cunard (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Passes WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 03:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I tried to Google the medal (in Russian) and found loads of links from the date of the announcement (Aug08, of course the time of the 2008 South Ossetia war). So I wondered if the medals had ever been issued, and found [43] which appears to show the recipients, and a blog entry [44] under the heading Я согласен на медаль... Почем? where the blogger seems to be saying "it was a nice idea but now these medals can be bought on the net for 600-1000 roubles". Perhaps a Russian speaker could do better. See also the Russian WP AFD quoted above a momentary interest in the press, but there is no encyclopedic value. Sussexonian (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. I have a reading knowledge of Russian, and the sources offered don't seem to me to go beyond a brief flurry of coverage in minor partisan publications. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep based on the following passage "The public award established specifically for the moral support of the peacekeeping operation to force Georgia to peace and the elimination of the humanitarian catastrophe in South Ossetia", - the chairman of the Board Mikhail Moiseyev."from [45], cited above also--what appears to be a genuine news article based on the story as carired by TAS, the national news service. Mikhail Moiseyev about whom we, incredibly, do not have an article, was the chief of the general staff of the Soviet armed forces--if it is the same person. The name is fairly common, but it seems likely from context. The wording of the sources & the award does seem to indicate an award by an extreme-nationalist group. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a different Moiseyev (M.M); the general's initials are M.A. Óðinn ☭☆ talk 06:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PHA training

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

Topic does not satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. This is a bodybuilding training theory that can be summarized in 5 words (much like 5x5 or 10 sets of 10 programs).Quartet 05:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nom has removed the merge proposal I was referring to above (see diff) --Cyclopiatalk 15:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"British fitness guru Matt Roberts has used the PHA (peripheral heart action) training system with clients who want to lose weight and reduce body fat, and they've experienced rapid results. You can benefit from his training regime in his book 'The PHA Workout'. PHA stands for peripheral heart action. It's a way of exercising that uses resistance training with weights in a way that makes your heart pump faster, like aerobic exercise."

Second one is 2507 words and half of them deal with the work out and what it comprises of. Hope that helps! PanydThe muffin is not subtle 18:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I formatted them a bit but I'm unsure about them -it seems both share the same URL and at least one of these requires payment. Could you fix that? thanks! --Cyclopiatalk 19:09, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A better ref is for example this chapter, perhaps? --Cyclopiatalk 19:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails WP:NOT. Davewild (talk) 10:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of people in Playboy 1990–1999 by birthplace

edit
List of people in Playboy 1990–1999 by birthplace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Firstly, I don't see any refs for the dates. Second, it appears to violate Wikipedia:NOT#STATS. Third, it is already covered in the individual decade and model articles. MBisanz talk 07:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -While there were spam concerns, editors supporting the article pointed to the not-insignificant coverage. Both positions are reasonable, and no clear consensus developed. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mobicip

edit
Mobicip (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 Created by a single-purpose editor who is here purely to advertise his or her own product. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note although the NYT reference is just a blog post, the app wasn't mentioned in the actual paper. And the "groundswell of support" online petition at petitionsonline only collected 152 signatures. Point being the app seems fairly non-notable. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed as well, a previous article advertising this software was speedy deleted. Mobicip Online Safety AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per the first five reviews in the article. The NYT blog is a reliable source because New York Times is. It's not a requirement that reliable sources have to be offline. Joe Chill (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Even if sources can be found for this, the text we have been handed remains blatant advertising:

    Due to the added mobility offered by personal internet-enabled devices like the iPod touch, securing the home PC, home network, or the enterprise network is not enough anymore. Modern devices can be used to access the Internet anytime anywhere. This expands the need to offer filtering solutions that can work within the constraints of a low-power device and offer protection wherever it is used.

    PR insertions of "articles" like this need to be dealt with summarily, without even the opportunity for getting bogged down in lawyering over notability.
    That said, commercial software products need some kind of historical or technical importance in order to merit articles, not merely existence verifiable by reviews; this makes no claim of that kind of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm a new Wikipedia contributor learning the ropes using this article as an experiment. The first article submitted was deleted, so I followed the guidelines in creating the second stub by adding references wherever possible. This version was retained with no corrections, but there was a note that the stub needs to be expanded. In response to the prompt, I added more content and references, but now it is again being considered for deletion. The company has been around for a year, and the events noted had references and links. Whether they were notable or not is a matter of perspective. For a small app company that came out of nowhere, the events were notable. I'm happy to take this article back to the stub state that it was in before. Also pointers to good practices for an article like this one would be useful. Whatsurstory (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To make the case for notability, please also see the other reviews besides New York Times in this version of the article. Among 100,000 apps on the App Store, this app has been listed in the Top 100 paid apps under the Education category since August. It has the best customer reviews among comparable apps on the App Store. The information mentioned here is independently verifiable, but has to be done on the App Store and so can't add references here. Whatsurstory (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware I take it, that we tend to dislike people using Wikipedia as a billboard to advertise their own products, we even have a content guideline explicitly explaining it. Wikipedia:Spam AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. But, given the secondary sources, do you still feel there isn't enough notability here to merit an article or stub? I will work on modifying the content to have a neutral point of view, if that is the point of contention. Whatsurstory (talk)
Sorry even given the secondary sources that I've seen I don't see the notability. Each of them have reviewed hundreds, if not thousands, of applications for the iPhone. Some of them review multiple applications every single day. The fact that people have written reviews of your product doesn't prove notability.
You also said that your app is in the top 100 paid education apps. If you think that qualifies it as notable, do you think we should automatically have articles on all the applications in the top 100 paid education apps category?
I'm sorry but what makes your app any more notable than any of the other thousands of iPhone apps out there? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean that at all. The article was meant to be a stub that can be referred from this page on Wikipedia that lists available content control software for different platforms. This is the most popular content control software for the iPhone or iPod Touch, illustrated by its presence in the Top 100. Would it merit a presence on the list based on that? Whatsurstory (talk) 20:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So your goal here is just to have your software listed on that "List of..." article? Sorry but the only reason we have "List of" articles is to point to articles. And the only reason we have stubs here is because people haven't gotten around to writing articles. The idea isn't to that a page can either be an article or a stub. And those "List of..." articles get deleted quite frequently, because again the intention is that Wikipedia should be a collection of articles, not lists.
Do you have a source that proves that your software is the most popular content control software on the iPhone? And I'm not asking for you to tell us that if we analyse the iTunes Store we'll come to that conclusion too (that would be original research). I mean an actual reliable third-party source that says "Mobicip is the most popular blah blah blah". AlistairMcMillan (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other than top 100 lists like this this and this and the fact that no other comparable app is on the list, there is no independent third-party source that mentions that Mobicip is the most popular. Whatsurstory (talk) 00:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So back to the review==notability argument. Given that appadvice has reviewed somewhere in the region of four to five hundred apps, are they all automatically notable now? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What don't you understand about multiple sources? Joe Chill (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What difference does it make if one site reviews hundreds of products or three or four sites review hundreds of products? Out of all the sources there is only one that isn't in the business of reviewing software every week or every day. One. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you only have that opinion about software? Do you think that film or book review sites don't show notability? Your opinions are very bias and not supported by anything. Articles don't get deleted in AFD by opinions like yours. Joe Chill (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have that opinion about everything not just software. Just because a film or book is reviewed doesn't make it notable. There are whole industries that have developed around reviewing anything and everything, simply having something reviewed doesn't make it notable. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 21:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the basis of reviews. All consumer products do not get reviews--anyone who thinks so is probably biased by the areas where a;ll major consumer products like automobile models, get reviewed, and are all notable. Full independent reviews are in my opinion, the most reliable of all sources for notability of a product--they are perhaps even a better evidence than the majority of "awards" . WP:N makes it very clear that famous is not necessary for notability. If it were, we'd be a much abridged encyclopedia. Technically or historically important is making a judgement about the value of something, and we do not do that. DGG ( talk ) 05:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ignoring the debate about whether a review constitutes notability. So just to be clear, if I start selling a piece of software you are perfectly okay with me coming to Wikipedia and writing an article about it? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
f you start selling a piece of software, and it gets such reviews, it is notable. Full product reviews are the sort of RSs that get written about products, and have uniformly been accepted as such. The criterion of historically or technically significant for products, however, is I think your own invention. for products. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So every product in every monthly issue of Consumer Reports deserves an article? I don't think so. Whether something is technically or historically significant, that is a call for reliable sources to make. Miami33139 (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. Those are excellent examples of the sort of group reviews that are not RSs for notability--they do not give significant coverage of any one product, but discuss a type of product, and give comparative statistics and a brief evaluation of usually dozens and sometimes hundred of similar products.--except for automobiles, which they do give full reviews, and where I would indeed consider them significant--and also except for an occasional featured review of a single major product. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's examine these reviews in the article then. There are 5. Three are trivial, consisting of one to three paragraphs.
  1. NYTimes - This online-only review hides most of the review behind a link, but clicking through shows the rest of the article is about other software not this one. This is a trivial, routine, Consumer Reports style review.
  2. UnwiredView - This also appears long because it shows a bunch of screenshots and single sentence paragraphs - clearly a review designed for the ADD set but is not actually detailed. Is UnwiredView even an RS we should consider for notability? It's a two person blog.
  3. about.com - Shows the routine page splat that drives their advertising revenue. This is not good coverage
  4. Ventura County Star - This is so far the only undeniably mainstream RS that gives extensive coverage and, unfortunately, it's a regional C-list paper with a low circulation promoting a local business. Does this actually confer notability? We would not accept this as conferring notability on any other product.
  5. Appadvice.com - A group blog that accepts ads from the products being reviewed, with close to 600 reviews, how does this separate Mobiclip from any other iPhone applet? The point of notability is to separate the routine run-of-the-mill product from things of significance. As you said Consumer Reports does, this is one of dozens or hundreds of similar products. Does this review from a blog, in the context that they review anything the blogger chooses to with no editorial discretion, show any significance? If so, when can we expect to start documenting the Sunbeam 3916 Heritage Series 2-Slice Toaster? It's reviewed, in-depth, from a specialized RS at least as credible as appadvice.com.
DGG, what I'm asking, is for a critical review of sources when they are presented. You said you want to keep this on the basis of reviews. How do these reviews show notability? When looked at critically, they do not. If we simply accept large numbers of references that claim notability without examining them, have we actually determined anything? Miami33139 (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm. You don't have a problem with people writing articles on Wikipedia about their own products or services? You're fine with Wikipedia being used as a billboard? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Also the curent version has copyright concerns. Davewild (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ringling Redskins

edit
Ringling Redskins (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 sports club. Little to no substantive coverage found. Previously speedied twice with no improvement--bringing here so any attempt to recreate can be speedied on sight per G4--though I'm of the mind that this article needs to be salted if deleted. Blueboy96 06:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't find any secondary sources, thus can't make it notable per Wikipedia guidelines. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 18:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The IMDB text appears to have come from a blog, but that ultimately is a distinction without a difference. No prejudice to recreating a properly sourced article that shows notability. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episode)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Users (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit episode) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like this page is copied straight from IMDb and has no verifiable secondary sources (and probably aren't any notable enough for this episode). Mike Allen talk · contribs 06:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC) ((Indeed, the editor copied the plot summary straight from IMDb: [46]. So it can be speedy deleted as a copyright violation. TJ Spyke 15:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The thing is a lot of popular drama shows DO have pages made for every episode, and I mean EVERY episode. (The Sopranos, L&O: CI, etc). I don't have time to AfD all of them. Lol. --Mike Allen talk · contribs 01:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Super Gran. . –Juliancolton | Talk 00:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Super Granny

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

Can't find any notability independent of Sandlot. There isn't any real content here worth merging. A google news search [47] shows no more coverage than things like "Sandlot makes games such as Super Granny" and that is about it. The article used as source is written by the company creator so it doesn't qualify as significant coverage by reliable sources independent of the subject. It is at best a redirect to the company without a merge. Unless someone can provide coverage by reliable non-blogs on this game, or some evidence of awards or something, I can't see any justification for keeping an article on this. Crossmr (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect A search turned up no coverage other than the routine coverage and I could find no awards other than those declaring the software as being "virus-free", "spyware-free" and the like. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 04:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KSP Sound Player

edit
KSP Sound Player (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 software audio player. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 04:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tarkhan clans

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

List of names: no indication of notability, no references and virtually no context. Were it not for the fact the article is long-standing I'd suggest this was speedily deletable (A1/A7). In addition, nothing else about the article seems to meet the definition of a list in the Wikipedia sense - in particular, it does not 'organise information' - none of the entries is a link (well, one is - but it links to a mirror of the same page) - it is literally just an alphabetically organised collection of names. I42 (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 04:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Moise-Szalla

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

Perhaps two dozen Google hits, most of which are Wikipedia mirrors and none of which remotely cover the subject in depth. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Biruitorul Talk 04:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No sources showing notability have been uncovered through 2 relistings. A former proponent now agrees that it lacks notability as well. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcasting Square

edit
Broadcasting Square (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 big-box complex. ---Dough4872 04:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 04:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CEDAR Logic Simulator

edit
CEDAR Logic Simulator (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 can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:24, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 04:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gordian Knot (software)

edit
Gordian Knot (software) (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 used this software - collection of otherwise independent tools. It was useful. However, the article does not meet our criteria of notability. It was a favorite tool of peeps who frequent forums and blogs but it never broken the glass ceiling into mainstream notability. As it is no longer developed, it is not going to have any resurgent mention to become notable. Miami33139 (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 04:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The merge suggestion is excellent, but I don't think there's sufficient consensus to close it that way. Of course, any editor is free to propose merging in the normal manner. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Models of collaborative tagging

edit
Models of collaborative tagging (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 a reseach essay, not an encyclopedia article or encyclopedic topic. Prod removed by author with no improvement or comment. Reywas92Talk 19:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are direct description of published models of collaborative tagging. I think they should be kept. Perhaps need minor editing, any comments on specific edits needed are welcomed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.49.47 (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 04:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Percy Gardiner

edit
Walter Percy Gardiner (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 person whose sole claim to fame seems to be that he's the maternal grandfather of the King of Jordan; however, notability is not transferrable.  RGTraynor  02:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is not suitable for an encyclopedia, but for a genealogy book. --MelanieN (talk) 03:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

  • Reply: Since over ten thousand soldiers received the award in WWII (presumably where he'd have received it), it's not likely, but either way the issue's sheer speculation with no place in an AfD discussion. Either there's solid evidence that Gardiner passes the notability thresholds for WP:N - in which case it should be presented - or there isn't, in which case the point is moot.  RGTraynor  07:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Timberlake

edit
Mr. Timberlake (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 album is not an official compilation but just a fan release. The album is not notable enough to have its own article. Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 02:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical software

edit
Biblical software (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 is primarily a massive linkfarm. Blatant violation of WP:NOTLINKS policy. Talk page indicates it has been speedily-deleted before, and possibly the subject of another AfD, but I can't find a record of that. In any case, it's a clear violation of policy. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The unwieldy/unmaintainable argument applies, only if they are no criteria to determine what is notable enough to be on the list. The simplest solution to that non-problem is to list only the programs that are notable enough to have their own article. jonathon (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lava Kusa – The Warrior Twins

edit
Lava Kusa – The Warrior Twins (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 article seems to fail WP:CRYSTAL and looks like blantant advertising. Pickbothmanlol 01:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Relief Method

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

Author has a history of writing articles that directly or indirectly promote a non-notable lawyer, Gerald Wolfe. This is no exception. If you actually try to access the references, they are either not relevant, trivial directory listings, or just broken links. The term itself ("Financial Relief Method") does not appear to be notable. Ultimately, this article is attempting to inappropriately promote the lawyer. PROD declined by author without reasons (after being given a Level 3 warning about writing articles about Gerald Wolfe.) Singularity42 (talk) 01:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the original author: This article is not about Gerald Wolfe. I was trying to post a new section on a response to common financial crisis. This term has been mentioned several times. I realized that one link was broken and have replaced it with an objective press release that mentions this company and their approach to Financial Relief. I can't help it if it's a new term and doesn't have many cites or if many cites are from the company that initially created it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki publishing (talk • contribs) 12:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

How is this article not about Gerald Wolfe? Except for the link to the Wikipedia article on Real estate, every other link is to something about Gerald Wolfe (his business directories, press releases from groups that he runs, etc.). The article is specifcally implying that Gerald Wolfe is the person to talk to about this so-called method. There are no independent references to "Financial Relief Method", the topic that is suppose to be the subject of this article.
Even if this article is not an ad for Gerald Wolfe,Finanical Relief Method is not notable. A Google search reveals only two hits (not including Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors). From your own comments: "I can't help it if it's a new term and doesn't have many cites or if many cites are from the company that initially created it." That means it is not notable. Singularity42 (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the author: Gerald Wolf is one of the creators. It is not about him; it is about his idea. It is notable as it has been recognized recently as an up and coming method during the recession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki publishing (talk • contribs) 12:38 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. While there was significant interest in a merge, all the referenced information all ready was present in the existing article. If some of the unrefenced information is needed for some reason, I'll be happy to provide a copy. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Finale (American Idol 8)

edit
Grand Finale (American Idol 6) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grand Finale (American Idol 7) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Grand Finale (American Idol 8) (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 - Unnecessary content forks from American Idol 6, American Idol 7 and American Idol 8, where most (if not all) of the content already exists. Therefore, no need for merges. The episodes do not pass the notability guidelines on their own and the content is to the parent articles. Dale 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NAFTA & The 100 Mile Diet: Economic Implications

edit
AfDs for this article:
NAFTA & The 100 Mile Diet: Economic Implications (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original essay which ties 100 Mile Diet and NAFTA. The references cited are either about the diet of about NAFTA, but not about both. Hence the article fails WP:SYNTH badly. - Altenmann >t 01:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is a rather obvious original argument, cobbling together sources about either the 100 mile diet or agriculture statistics in an attempt to prove the thesis that "Widespread local eating may decrease the volume of agricultural trade between the three countries; especially trade of products that can be grown in Canada." This looks like a (very) rough draft of a college paper or maybe even a journal article, but it's inappropriate for Wikipedia. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An essay. Joe Chill (talk) 19:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy Film Company

edit
Monarchy Film Company (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 can't find significant coverage for this film company. Joe Chill (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Google doesn't have even two pages listed when I attempted to find sources. Pickbothmanlol (talk) 00:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs some work, but this dose not mean it isn't relevant. It needs some citations, but it is not deletion material yet. I'll give it a week and then update my decision.--Johncoracing48 (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, could not find any reference material or coverage other than a youtube video. Has not released material and appears to simply be more of a student project. I'm sensitive to the difficulty in finding sources for non-english material, but I simply could not turn anything up. Kuru talk 18:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. No evident agreement as to whether or not the topic is sufficiently notable for inclusion. Currently the nominator is the only editor arguing for deletion, but they seem to provide a strong case which is backed up by relevant standards and policies. There are a number of keep "votes", but they are weak in nature and often don't address the main issue. Overall, I can't see any consensus either way. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MurmurHash

edit
AfDs for this article:
MurmurHash (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 was previously deleted for (although having plenty of references) for not having any wp:reliable source references at all. The article's subject is thus not currently wp:notable. Article was rewritten and recreated without solving this problem in any way, and hence we're back in an AFD again, not so very long after the previous one. Basically in the absence of a reliable source (with proper editorial control and peer review of the information) then the problem is that hash functions are two a penny, and there's no reason at all, under the Wikipedia's policy that this should be kept. This is particularly so after we had a previous delete for the same reason. This article seems to me to be intended to be a form of advertising right now, the Wikipedia is not supposed to be here to create notability. - Wolfkeeper 21:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I anticipated this reaction, so I checked with both of the admins who had deleted the article previously and got their input and permission before restoring it. Both agreed that the Hammer academic article and the NIST listing are sufficient WP:RS for notability. For some reason, you don't.
Keep in mind that the bar for notability for non-cryptographic hashes on Wikipedia is not especially high. I was unable to get Fowler Noll Vo hash deleted even though it only references Noll's own site. The other comparable hash, Jenkins hash function, likewise references only Jenkins, although one of these references is in a published (industry but non-academic magazine) article by him. This leaves me to wonder why you hold this particular algorithm to a higher standard than the rest. Did MurmurHash do something bad to you once?
Also, please WP:AGF and avoid impugning the motivations of editors. There is absolutely nothing in the article that constitutes advertising, and it's just an algorithm that was placed in the public domain for all to use freely, so there is no "product" to advertise. Instead, I would appreciate it if you could address the conflict between your claim that there are no reliable sources and the presence of these demonstrably reliable sources. Phil Spectre (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Both of them are one word mentions. They don't in my opinion confer any significant notability. The Hammer mentions it once, and then never mentions it again in the Conclusions. The NIST mentions it once at the bottom of the page. These are not substantive references.- Wolfkeeper 01:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See below for refutation of the "one word mentions" notion. Phil Spectre (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think you're comparing like with like, if you look at the AFD discussion for Fowler Noll Vo Hash, you'll see that they found over 105 hits in google scholar alone. Last time we couldn't find any hits in google scholar on murmurHash, and you haven't quoted any. Indeed, it's the fact that you've recreated this article without fixing the problems with it that is so frustrating, and prompted the AFD.- Wolfkeeper 01:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If hits were all that mattered, then the 584 site:.edu hits that User:Gruntler found for MurmurHash are on par with the 1580 for FNV. There were apparently 105 Scholar "hits" for FNV, but not a single one made its way into Fowler Noll Vo hash, so why should we care? For that matter, you don't need 105 hits to be notable or even 2; a single WP:RS of WP:N suffices. Hammer, NIST and Chouza are all good enough for that. There are also good industry and open-source citations, which you've arbitrarily chosen to ignore. Please don't poison the well or stack the deck. Phil Spectre (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen an article with this little in the way of reliable sources, and I've seen articles with much more than this fail multiple AFDs.- Wolfkeeper 01:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying you never saw Fowler Noll Vo hash, which has no references except to Noll's site? I'm sorry, but what you're saying just doesn't fit the evidence. Phil Spectre (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that after MurmurHash got AFDd you AFDd at least two other hash function articles, but both were convincingly kept. Whether an article is kept or not is often more about whether AFD participants can establish that the encyclopedic topic is viable, and Fowler Noll Vo Hash convinced in AFD based on google scholar and other criteria. Last time with MurmurHash the answer was no. I'm still not convinced on this; it still seems very, very thin indeed. There are only a tiny number of reliable sources, and this is not terribly substantive.- Wolfkeeper 02:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm getting the impression that you're speaking hastily without checking your sources. In specific, what you're claiming is demonstrably false.
I did launch an AfD on the FNV article, and I still believe that, as it was then, it did not deserve to be on Wikipedia. The solution was to trim the article down so that it wasn't too big for its sources. I did the same for Jenkins, removing references to a long-dead website, but I never initiated an AfD against it. In fact, the one on FNV was my first and only, and I now regret it because I was clearly too eager to delete instead of repair. I made the mistake of basing my argument for deletion on yours, and learned that it was flawed. That's why, after some reluctance, I worked to restore MurmurHash.
As for your conclusion about the sources, it is just as hasty. I suggest that you read below about academic publications that provide clearly reliable sources for notability before you jump to repeating your conclusion. I would then encourage you to be specific about what you find lacking, instead of simply stating that you're unimpressed. Such statements speak of your own unspecified personal criteria, not anything relevant to Wikipedia, so they are not particularly persuasive in the context of a !VOTE. 15:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this turns out not to be the case. As before, Google Scholar search returned academic articles by Hammer and by Chouza et al., which discuss their reasons for using MurmurHash in the course of achieving their primary goal and reference it properly in their end notes. Contrary to what Wolfkeeper has claimed, these were not all one-word mentions. For example, http://laboratorios.fi.uba.ar/lsi/chouza-tesisingenieriainformatica.pdf compares MurmurHash to FNV-1a and SuperfastHash a half dozen times, evaluating them on the basis of key size, speed and collisions. This is precisely the sort of analysis in an academic setting that establishes notability. Interestingly, the article goes on to explain that they chose to use MurmurHash because it was a better hash than the other two, which is itself notable. I do realize that you might not speak Spanish, but anyone can get a decent translation through Google Language Tools, so can only can only conclude that you just didn't read this article, which means that your !VOTE here should be understood in that context. The goal here is not merely to give your opinion, but to give an informed opinion. Phil Spectre (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very true; there are more sources. I don't see http://laboratorios.fi.uba.ar/lsi/chouza-tesisingenieriainformatica.pdf in the article, which is why I did not evaluate it. This source appears to indicate notability; however, the depth of coverage is not enough for it to establish notability by itself — more sources are needed.

    Many of the sources in the article are unreliable: this is a blog and this is passing mention in a code website. Because my old rationale no longer applies and because I am undecided about the notability of MurmurHash, I will abstain for now. Cunard (talk) 01:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for evaluating this issue more carefully, whatever you conclude. To be clear, the links you mentioned were not provided primarily to establish notability, but to add value to the article. It is typical for articles on algorithms to link to available sample implementations, and unlike the now-deleted version, this one does not contain source code or even pseudocode (whereas some articles do one or both).
Having said this, the fact that the algorithm is included in a number of significant open-source projects is an indirect indication of its notability, regardless of how little fanfare there is about it. If we put aside WP:RS for a moment and just Google for insight, it's easy to find discussions about MurmurHash within these projects' forums, showing that it's genuinely being used, evaluated and discussed. For example, this blog entry evaluates MurmurHash for use in Bloom filters under Hadoop and directly endorses it. And, yes, I know it's a blog and not WP:RS; I'm just offering insight. Phil Spectre (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realized that you were spot on about the Chouza reference not being in the article, so I've changed that. Rather than taking this RFD as something personal, I'm using it as an opportunity to get input to improve the article. As a result, I've also added an academic reference that confirms how well the hash works in a Bloom filter, which is another indication of notability. Phil Spectre (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this PDF is all bitmaps, not text. I don't have the tools handy to OCR it, but using the end notes as an index made it easy enough to find that page 14 contains the mention. The exact text is: "The choice of the hashing algorithm to be employed within D2STM has been based on experimental comparison of a spectrum of different hash functions trading off complexity, speed and collision resistance. The one that exhibited the best performance while matching the analytically forecast false positive probability turned out to be MurmurHash2 [5], a simple, multiplicative hash function whose excellent performances have been also confirmed by some recent benchmarking results [24]." This is simultaneously a "one word mention" and a WP:RS of WP:N. Phil Spectre (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reading up on WP:RS. What I've learned is that whether something is a reliable source depends on what we're using it as a reliable source for. For example, we link to Appleby's self-published official MurmurHash site, which includes the source code but also offers benchmark results that suggest the algorithm is substantially faster than alternatives. It would be entirely inappropriate for us to reference these self-published claims in the context of asserting them as true, and in fact, we do not. Rather, just as it's ok to quote someone's blog purely as a source for what that person has said, it's fine to point to Appleby's site for the exact code that he released into the public domain. In a similar way, we use Landman's blog to point to the C# port that he published, not to repeat his opinion about MurmurHash. After all, who is Davy Landman anyhow and why should we care? (Sorry, Davy, nothing personal.)
So, in this case, even though blogs are not generally WP:RS, we still reference two of them, one of which is a primary source that's got possible WP:COI. However, because of how we use them, these two are not only valuable additions to the article, but are WP:RS. In contrast, when we do speak of possibly controversial claims, such as the speed of the hash, we carefully rely on a combination of published academic papers and respected open-source projects. I suppose that, if we really wanted to, we could quote Appleby's speed claims as "according to the author", but we don't need to so we don't. Phil Spectre (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've also been reading WP:N, particularly WP:GNG, and what I found supports the notability of this article. I'm not going to copy and paste the whole thing here, but I will quote parts and refer to the rest in a way that assumes you have it up in another window. The basic requirement is that it must receive "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I think the issue here is that these terms are being misunderstood in a way that inflates the difficulty of qualifying. Fortunately, the page does go into more detail, which I believe settles the issue.
Significant coverage: The source has to cover the topic "directly in detail", adding that this means "more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". I would suggest that Chouza is a particularly fine example of this, as is Coceiro.
Reliable: Clearly includes published academic papers.
Sources: Requires that they be secondary. All of the sources used in MurmurHash to establish notability are secondary.
Independent of subject: Requires that secondary sources not be mouthpieces for the primary source. With papers from multiple countries, I don't believe this is an issue.
Presumed: States that this is sufficient to support a presumption of notability, but it's still possible that we may decide for other reasons that it's not notable. Again, this doesn't seem to be an issue here. Rather, we seem to agree that, so long as WP:GNG was satisfied, this topic would be notable.
Having broken down the requirements and analyzed them piecemeal, I'm convinced that they are being met. Phil Spectre (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Phil Spectre (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Phil Spectre (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep From both Phil Spectre's and Wolfkeeper's comments it does seem that the bar for notability for hashes is too low. Also, the argument from failure (or success) of Afd for other articles is an inherently weak one. For those who propose deletion, what would a reasonable notability guideline be for hash functions? --Bejnar (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask you a related question: What would it take to convince you to change from Weak Keep to Strong Keep? What's missing? Phil Spectre (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has very poor notability, just 3 hits in google scholar, and none in google books. And two of those are one word or one sentence mentions. The other one liked it, it benchmarked well against just two other contenders in his application. I think it takes more than that; I don't think it's in the top 3.5 million topics (which is what the Wikipedia looks like it will reach eventually), not by a long way.- Wolfkeeper 15:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it appears that you may well lack the ability to correctly use Google Scholar, as your numbers are simply wrong. If you look at MurmurHash, you'll see it lists 4 academic publications, all found through Google Scholar. That's not all of them, either, but I made an effort to avoid duplicates from the same sources, based on advice from User:Jclemens. Likewise, I've already corrected your claim about "one sentence mentions", showing it to be both false and irrelevant, and addressed WP:GNG on a point-by-point basis. I don't think any of your objections thus far have survived inquiry. Phil Spectre (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest we don't know who Phil Spectre is; the account was created shortly after MurmurHash was deleted. He seems uncommonly keen on this particular hash function; and has, since he created the account, mostly tried to get other competing hash function's articles deleted.- Wolfkeeper 15:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, we don't know who you are, but we do know who I am. While I put my name and personal credibility on the line with each edit I make, I would very much appreciate it if you kept the focus of this discussion where it belongs, on WP:N not User:Phil Spectre. The only one I know of with any WP:COI is User:Aappleby, who has been entirely up front regarding his identity and role. I'm sorry I have to ask this, but is there something that you'd like to share with us at this time about your own identity? Phil Spectre (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on 25,000 edits I don't think I have anything to prove. You suddenly appeared, two days after the previous article was deleted, and it turns out that that article was created by a known sock puppet of a banned user, and we had that sock puppet commenting in the deletion discussion as well, and arguing against it.- Wolfkeeper 18:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know or care who else supported or opposed this article. What I do know is that you are attacking me instead of the article. I will let that speak for itself. Phil Spectre (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A COI is not a valid reason for deletion. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But what's sufficient notability? We have 4 hits in google scholar, 3 of which are basically 1 word mentions. Even the most significant google scholar hit isn't exactly the New York Times, does anything reference that? I'm still not getting warm fuzzies about it's notability here.- Wolfkeeper 04:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wolfkeeper, these numbers are still wrong. Whatever your opinion might be, it would be more relevant to us if you got the facts straight. Phil Spectre (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 hits in Google scholar The count of 5 at the top appears to be incorrect. I actually downloaded and read all 4 of these, and only one actually did more than a one word mention.- Wolfkeeper 02:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have purposely not provided an opinion on notability, because I don't have one yet. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - I still haven't !VOTED yet, so I might as well get that formality out of the way. For all the reasons I've explained above, I believe that the article in its current state should be left in place. As it does not appear as though Wolfkeeper has been able to garner any support here, I don't think there's a question about what the consensus is. Phil Spectre (talk) 07:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As required by the AfD process, I would like to reveal any and all potential conflicts of interest. In case it is not readily apparent, I should explicitly disclose that I worked with the two administrators who have deleted previous versions of this article to recreate it in a form that I believe merits inclusion in the project. As such, I cannot claim to be completely objective. Having said that, I gain no benefit, monetary or otherwise, from any increased exposure that MurmurHash may receive as a result of this article. I have not written about MurmurHash in any other forum, nor have I used it professionally, although I did spend an hour confirming the performance claims to my satisfaction. I should also remind you that I am not the original author of the article or of the algorithm, and I have been fully cleared of the sock puppetry charges that alleged the contrary. Phil Spectre (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of male performers in gay porn films. MuZemike 00:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Capucci

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

Doesn't meet WP:PORNBIO criteria. The only reliable source I've come across is a brief mention in this Daily News article. (then again, the Daily News article is a gossip page, so I don't know if it's reliable for a biography of a living person) APK because, he says, it's true 22:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Merge per Benjiboi. There are sufficient sources he found to support an entry in the list, especially the GayVN nomination and Queer Porn Nation. — Becksguy (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Ru

edit
Lil Ru (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 think the claim is that he pressed the CDs for his self-published CDs but that the current one is on Def Jam. This seems to check out on Allmusic [50]. He also had singles on Capitol in 2007 [51]. No chart positions are listed though. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to weak keep. The album chart position just puts him over the threshold. If the singles can be referenced as charting too then that would be even better. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Coleman

edit
Kyle Coleman (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 college athlete; fails WP:notability (people) Pdcook (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Solonoski

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

Recreation of previously deleted bio page. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Solonoski for the discussion that led to the previous deletion. Solonoski still does not meet the general criteria for notability in WP:ATHLETE, as he has still not qualified to compete "at the highest level" of his sport even in his own country (the senior division of the US Figure Skating Championships). Also see WP:WPFIGURE/N for specific discussion of notability for figure skaters. Solonoski did medal at the national Collegiate championship and was selected to compete at a minor international event, but per the US Figure Skating policies such collegiate competitors are not considered part of Team USA or members of a team envelope. I enjoy watching Solonoski's skating and give him credit for continuing to compete while attending college.... but his competitive accomplishments to date are not such that he has established any long-term notability in the sport. Dr.frog (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Solonoski will be competeing at the highest level of his sport this January at the 2010 Championships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.217.177.165 (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Locomotive (software)

edit
Locomotive (software) (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 can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Knight (company)

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

Seems to fail WP:ORG; I can find nothing on google, google books or google news, although I appreciate that with the name a lot of false positives are likely to mask true results. Ironholds (talk) 19:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Willem and Louis van der Merwe

edit
Willem and Louis van der Merwe (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 an article about two amateur singers. No clear evidence of notability - reaching the finals of a single competition (and failing) isn't enough. Fails WP:N andy (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepUndecided. Reaching the finals of a single competition is enough. Criterion 9 of WP:MUSICBIO states "Has won or placed in a major music competition." I suppose one could argue that SA's Got Talent isn't major, but if it is they are notable. J04n(talk page) 20:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, first of all it's not a music competition at all. Two of the other finalists were dancers and musical ability isn't a prerequisite for entry into the competition. In any case, if you look at the other criteria in WP:MUSICBIO I think that the intention is clearly that it should be a competition that requires high professional standards - the other criteria are things such as winning a Grammy, having a charted single, writing a major theme tune or being the subject of a full-length documentary on national TV. These guys are a long way from that sort of thing. andy (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Tim Song (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder Collins

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

Onetime college football player who never made the pros and fails WP:ATHLETE. Only other potential claim to notability is murder conviction in apparent drug-related incident, but that fails under NOTNEWS. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found it hard to believe it would even be mentioned that he played for the Alouettes unless he played a down for them--but just in case, I found a source saying he did play for them here. If my French is accurate, it says, "He played one game for the Alouettes in 2003." Blueboy96 21:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now switching to keep per source brought forward by Blueboy.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No support for deletion apart from nominator. Davewild (talk) 09:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votruba

edit
Votruba (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 list of mostly Red links. Tresiden (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: per new "lede" - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forrest Lin

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

According to the linked website, the subject's claim to notability is that he's the unofficial 53rd-fastest solver of the cube. Pseudomonas(talk) 14:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I suppose WP:ATHLETE is the relevant guideline, and the competition he's allegedly notable for does not appear in the official WCA listings ([55]) for 2009, which is presumably the "highest amateur level" of this particular competitive activity. Tevildo (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Grimaud

edit

I don't see why Tony Grimaud's article had been marked for deletion. I am sure others would want to add and improve on the page. Why be so quick to judge and condemn? So come on guys, get his page back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.109.80.98 (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Grimaud (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 can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - The article never states what he has done. There's no indication of albums, or touring. The critical praise is unsourced. A search for sources turns up event listings such as [56], [57], [58] but these establish that he exists and does not establish him as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn; kept. (X! · talk)  · @324  ·  06:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Light Finding Operation

edit
Light Finding Operation (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 list of fictional mecha from the universe of the Japanese anime and manga Eureka Seven is not notable in its own right. No reliable, third-party sources describing these mecha exist. If this article is deleted, I suggest content be moved to the Eureka Seven Wikia, though it is largely inactive. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR talk // contribs 06:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Like Farix said, I've seen coverage of this. The article is really long (like most list articles) and needs work. But I think there's a notable topic here, it just needs refinement. A page rename wouldn't be a bad idea either. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Detroit Tigers all-time roster. If deemed necessary due to size or other reasons, the list can be split out again. NW (Talk) 01:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Detroit Tigers shortstops

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

Also, no context, no reason given for this list to exist as they're all listed at Detroit Tigers all-time roster. Muboshgu (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they're all listed by position elsewhere, agree this is needless. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, Detroit Tigers all-time roster doesn't specify whether a particular infielder actually played shortstop. Personally, I am neutral on this AfD - I think an appropriate and useful list could be made on this topic, but I don't think the current list (simply an alphabetical listing) cuts it. Rlendog (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Detroit Tigers all-time roster. If deemed necessary due to size or other reasons, the list can be split out again. NW (Talk) 01:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Detroit Tigers second basemen

edit
List of Detroit Tigers second basemen (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 context, no reason it's notable for them to be second baseman on the Tigers such that they need a separate list from Detroit Tigers all-time roster. Muboshgu (talk) 03:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they're all listed by position elsewhere, agree this is needless. TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, Detroit Tigers all-time roster doesn't specify whether a particular infielder actually played shortstop. Personally, I am neutral on this AfD - I think an appropriate and useful list could be made on this topic, but I don't think the current list (simply an alphabetical listing) cuts it. Rlendog (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Boudreau

edit
Laura Boudreau (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 page has not been updated or modified for some time. Although the page is biographical and from a neutral point of view, the biography seems self promotional. It does not link to references, provide sources, or demonstrate claims to notability as established in Wikipedia:BIO#Any_biography. BordenRhodes (talk) 02:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 will.i.am. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jackass Song

edit
The Jackass Song (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 fails WP:NSONGS, lack of WP:RS and no WP:N. Dale 01:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete, as the article did not make any credible claims to significance for the company. If anyone wants to use the content to try and build a better article from, please feel free to ask at my talkpage or at WP:REFUND.  Skomorokh, barbarian  03:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

InZania

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


continued feedback? changes made, no idea how to find revenue & profits of a privately owned company —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paska12 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


No reliable sources (the page on Mixx.com which was added after a request for references does not appear to fulfill the requirements of WP:RS), unencyclopedic advertising-like text ("has sought to bring innovation, quality and customer satisfaction to the mobile space by creating applications that marry the computing power of a desktop with the convenience of a mobile device"), no evidence for encyclopedic notability, several fundamental "hard facts" about the company are missing (number of employees, revenue & profits, ownership). HaeB (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created about a company that I liked based on information provided from their website. I am a first time Wikipedia user but I tried to follow the wikipedia guidelines and alter the article based on comments from the Wikipedia group as they were listed on the article. I would love more feedback so I can learn to be a better wikipedia user but I feel that I have met the guidelines for this article and enjoyed trying to create my first article (and learned a lot!)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paska12 (talk • contribs)

Hi Paska12, would you mind answering the question on your talk page?
You are welcome to improve the article in the coming days, but in its present state it does not satisfy several important Wikipedia policies.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete References consist only of links to this company's own website, and the company's products on the iTunes website; not even close to meeting WP:GNG. As the article was originally written in the format of an advertisement, it's unreasonable to expect Wikipedia editors to try to find sources and clean up the mess. No thanks. Andrea105 (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 01:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Victors (book)

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

Source for the book title is WikiAnswers; no reliable source can be found to confirm this. Also, the book is unpublished and should not have an article yet per WP:BK#Not yet published books. Only other sources provided are fansites/forums. Andrea (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kevin (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagbilaran Accelerated Christian School

edit
Tagbilaran Accelerated Christian School (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. Zhang He (talk) 02:48, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_November_21&oldid=1142643522"