Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 8

< 7 January	9 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW -- Creator states no RS references exist to support article. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Circle Stone Group: The Beginning

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

Self-published children's novel with no reliable, independent sources (the references provided include an Amazon page, a Facebook page and what looks like an author-penned press release). The article is written by the author himself. Holly25 (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, found some press releases but no significant independent coverage that could meet WP:NBOOK. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The "reviews" on Amazon is a customer review, which is total opinion and not suitable for a reference, and Facebook is not close to a reliable source either. There's no independent coverage apart from these and an advertising website; the article's references section makes that clear. C628 (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I personally think that category A9 of speedy deletion should include things like this. If there's zero signs that either the book or the author are notable, is there any point in a deletion debate? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing is always getting shot down at Wikipedia:Village pump, but you're welcome to give it a try. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As I said in the PROD (which the author removed), the references section demonstrates that there are no reliable sources on this book. No reliable sources = can't have a good encyclopedia article on it = delete. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Both sides make some points that have merit - but at this point in time I do not see a significant enough of a consensus among those voicing sentiment for "delete", to warrant deletion of the page. Cirt (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TV Guide's 50 Greatest TV Shows of All Time

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

Delete. This one is a bit tricky. I'm not sure why we, as an encyclopedia, are promoting a non-neutral list such as this even if it is from TV Guide's collective point of view. We do have similar lists such as List of films considered the worst but that one is a hybrid or combination of various publications. There are also some concerns regarding possible copyright violation, and I'm not sure if that's been resolved by only republishing the top 10 of their 50. Is it? JBsupreme (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think only having the top 10 falls under fair use (non-free content). That said this list just isn't that notable. Garion96 (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What we have is fair use, and they are a reasonable group to use for the purpose, being the best known and longest standing guide by a very considerable margin. But it would be much better if here were multiple lists we could use for a more comprehensive article. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't have any strong copyright concerns- top ten of a fifty item list is reasonable fair use. Where's the notability, though? AP wrote a story about this when it came out, but I don't see any notability for the list. An article about the general concept and opinions of the best television shows of all time could be done like List of films considered the worst, which looks nothing like this article, and includes multiple sources and viewpoints. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many similar lists on Wikipedia about a magazine, organization or individual's published list of bests, such as:

Time magazine's 100 best TV shows of all-TIME Time magazine's "All-TIME" 100 best movies 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die The 100 Greatest Cartoons BFI Top 100 British films Oklahoma Film Critics Circle: Top 10 Films The Top 100 Crime Novels of All Time

Categories even exist for such lists, e.g. Category:Top lists and Category:Top television lists. It would seem to come down to notability, and this one appears to be notable, especially given Wikipedia's focus on pop culture. Ecphora (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to TV Guide Ultimately, I think this will end up kept because people like this type of article, mostly because people like reading such surveys. However I think this is the literal example of the argument that "Wikipedia is not TV guide". The reality is that TV Guide, as with any other magazine, is going to do a "special issue", several times a year, in which it lists greatest shows, worst shows, greatest episodes, etc. Sometimes we'll keep lists such as the ones cited by Ecphora, not because they were historically notable, but for the same reasons people buy special issues--curiosity. The list was never notable to begin with; it was interesting in 2002, less so in 2007, and... ten years after the newest show on that list (The Sopranos)... nothing more than a TV Guide in the attic. Notability is not temporary, but the latest news is temporary. Ideally, one would have a paragraph in the magazine article (or in an article about such lists) that summarizes who the "winners" were, and-- most importantly-- a link that people can click upon in order to (take your pick, "verify" or "read" copyrighted material. Essentially, that's what this article has to do, dancing around actually reciting the copyrighted list. The dance moves are the "breakdown of shows" section, in which the authors are saying that they really really would like to tell us more, but here is our original synthesis of highlights-- oldest show, network with most shows, etc. Mandsford (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per DGG. A comparative list would be good at some point. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If I can google and find the whole list and this isn't a combination of sources what's the point of keeping it? As a reader I would be annoyed at only finding the top ten when I was trying to find all fifty. Peppage ^tlk 20:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Queries. Is there a copyright concern? CBS News gives all 50. Did they ask for permission? If they didn't, why can't we give all 50? Abductive (reasoning) 05:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CBS places the whole list under fair use. Wikipedia has much more stricter fair use policy. See Wikipedia:Non-free content. Garion96 (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable listing based on a single magazine article. Such lists should only have their own Wikipedia articles when they are very widely reported on in third party sources should have their own articles. Ones like this that are just a flavour of the week should not. Since this article is about a specific subject (TV Guide's list) rather than a Wikipedia list it must fully conform to the standard notability guideline. None of the sources mentioned above, or that I could find in a google search satisfy those criteria. Likewise I believe that many of the lists cited by Ecphora should also be deleted, but see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. In any event, since notability is the primary concern they each need to be evaluated on their own merits. Eluchil404 (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Westside Union School District. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza Elementary School

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

I know it's not the first time (but prefer an AFD anyways) I am nominating a school for deletion, but unless there is something missing here, the school lacks notability even despite the fact it was located close of the location of a crisis situation - so Delete. JForget 23:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think merge to Westside Union School District would match our usual practice on these non-notable elementary schools. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the district per policy. Although the content sounds like the school's children are editing the article, this doesn't appear to have been a school project (often, a Wikipedia article will be created as part of a lesson on usng the internet, and then be removed or AfD'd after a week or two, when the class moves on to other things). Being the school that was closer than others to a nearby event isn't significant, any more so than being the school closest to the skate park. Mandsford (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Westside Union School District per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keep (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 03:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belizean people

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

No such ethnic group has been recognised to exist, as far as I can tell:

1. At Belize's 2000 census (see p. 43 here, or here), no one is recorded as having self-identified as an ethnic Belizean. Belize is inhabited by Mestizos, Creoles, Garifuna, Maya, Germans (Mennonites), East Indians, and others. These are discrete ethnic groups that identify as such. They may start to call themselves "Belizean" in the future, but until that time arrives, it is not our role to crystalball.

2. Independent sources also do not refer to the existence of a Belizean ethnic group. There are certainly discussions of ethnicity in Belize (eg here), but these make clear the country's multi-ethnic character. It's definitely a subject worth discussing, but at Demographics of Belize, not in an article about an ethnic group no independent source treats as extant. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is this article even talking about a purported ethnic group at all? I think it means "Belizean people" as in "folks who are from Belize," in the same vein as we have British people, Chilean people, People of the United States, and so on. I don't see the problem; am I missing something? Glenfarclas (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The infobox is the one used for ethnic groups, although your examples do raise a valid point. Maybe until/unless this is expanded we could move this to List of Belizeans? - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's the right thing to do, since although the article does contain a list it also covers material that's not really listlike, such as "About 1 out of every 3 Belizeans now live overseas and outside of Belize." You're right that it's not much of an article yet, but I think the best course is just to tag it for improvement. And as to the infobox, the other "People" articles I mentioned above seem to use the same one. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the nominator failed to read the first sentence of the article. It doesn't purport to be about an ethnic group. It's about people who are from Belize. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, while I appreciate the nominator's hard work in finding and looking through census data and so on—something not too many editors would have the initiative to do—I think the nomination was predicated on an easy misunderstanding and should be withdrawn. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have articles about people from nearly every nation, and in this regard, it's no different than People of the United States, one of the suggested alternatives when one types in the phrase American people. I suppose we could should call it "People of Belize" to be consistent. I'll resist the temptation to say "Oh, buh-lease!" Mandsford (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not about an ethnic group - agree with other commenters. Bazonka (talk) 17:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cybernautic

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

Spammy article for a company apparently written by its president & CEO. There are a lot of spurious web hits, but I can find one shortish mention from Gnews. Despite the article's claim of a big Facebook fanbase, I think it means that the Extreme Makeover project for which Cybernautic designed a page has a big fanbase. I cannot find the " significant coverage in [reliable, independent] secondary sources" that it would take to pass WP:CORP. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Business-related deletions and Illinois-related deletions. —Closeapple (talk) 01:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Closeapple (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spammy, minimally notable entry. Hairhorn (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, an online business with no showing of minimal importance other than a claim to have Facebook fans. Note that cybernaut itself redirects to User (computing). (Ah, the Nineties!) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Rather blatant self-promotion. I especially got a laugh out of the user putting himself in the same short list with State Farm Insurance and Mitsubishi. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cited Sources - Documentation for the Extreme Makeover:Home Edition episode page on facebook [1] has been added as well as the blog coverage [2] and a national magazine article [3]. This site was the first episode site for the TV Show that did not crash during development and this was considered newsworthy by Rackspace and Information Week Magazine. - cparker6 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC). — Cparker6 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Blogs, Facebook, etc are generally not considered reliable sources. That leaves a single article in a trade magazine, which is a pretty shaky foundation for notability. Hairhorn (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks promotional to me, but shows little to promote. Peridon (talk)
Delete. Fails Wikipedia notability under WP:LOCAL/WP:CORP; some local subcontractor for the contractor used by a production company for an episode of a TV show. No WP:RS for WP:Wikipuffery like "one of the largest web design firms in the State of Illinois" — barely enough claim to avoid WP:CSD#A7, and even the Rackspace press releases refer to Cybernautic's size as "its estimated 200 client websites". IW article looks like an enhanced press release. Regardless, WP:Autobiography so cherry picked confirmation bias. There are more Google News articles about Cybernautics, a California web hosting company that was bought out a year before this Illinois one claims to have started. Also not(?) to be confused with similar local firm Cyberdesic (bought by Rocky Mountain Internet right after Dave's World, 1999) or Cyberonic or the dozen other firms named various forms of "Cybernetic" just in Illinois. --Closeapple (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. there is already a redirect at the Fame Monster as stated by User:Amalthea JForget 22:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So Happy I Could Die (song)

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

This is an easy c/p from Bad Romance, not confirmed as singnle.--SveroH (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Fame Monster. Delete per Amalthea below, not a useful redirect. Has not actually charted contrary to what the article says; it is a copy/paste from Bad Romance as the nominator said. Not a confirmed single. Fails WP:NSONGS. talking birds 19:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not are real single just copied and pasted from bad romance article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.72.108 (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC) ~~*Redirect~~ Delete per below.. I checked the claim about US charting and the claim about the song being platinum in Australia and both were false, so, if retained, the article would need some serious fact checking. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that So Happy I Could Die already is a redirect to that album, having a second one with a disambiguator in the title is not useful. Unless the history is found useful, it should just be deleted. Amalthea 20:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Transwiki'ing or merging seem like reasonable solutions which should be explored. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

High bus number

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

Non notable jargon phrase. noq (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed... might be suitable for Wiktionary. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have we stopped doing research at AFD whilst I've been busy? There are quite a lot of sources that deal in the concepts of software developers being hit by a bus. There are even sources that deal with the quite specific sub-topic of Guido van Rossum being hit by a bus. (See page 518 of ISBN 0596002815.) The August 2007 issue of CIO magazine has an article providing a case study of what happened when a project manager was metaphorically hit by a bus. Pages 95–96 of ISBN 0750658541 has a case study of what happened when a software developer was literally hit by a bus. The Encyclopedia of industrial and organizational psychology (ISBN 1412924707) deals with the subject of the impact upon projects of people being hit by a bus in its article on succession planning. It's fairly obvious that the subject of such eventualities is an encyclopaedic topic. It's in another encyclopaedia already. The only real question is choosing a good title, which this is not (as is discussed on the article's talk page), and making this a proper sub-topic of succession planning, which deals in more than just accidents. That does not involve the use of the deletion tool. It involves writing and — importantly — research. The latter is badly lacking in what both Noq and Doomsdayer520 wrote above. Please put more effort into research in future. Finding out what I mentioned here, which barely skims the surface of what is available to people who want to actually write, took less than 5 minutes. Uncle G (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another article which touches on this topic is Key man insurance. Not allowing all members of a critical group such as a royal family or high command to travel together has also been used as a sensible precaution. We should bring these topics together rather than deleting any of them. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Succession planning. Death of a key worker is a problem in any business or organization, not just software development. Refs that a software developer was "metaphorically hit by a bus" and another was "literally hit by a bus" are not convincing evidence of notability for this neologism. No claim is made that busses are attracted to code warriors like tornadoes to trailer courts. Loss of the only person or persons who knows how to keep something operating is a general problem. More than a non-jargon title is needed to justify a standalone article about the problems of having a dead software developer. Edison (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO. Just because a few books use it doesn't mean it passes NEO. "Widespread" acceptance is subjective and, in my view, it hasn't reached that. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2010 (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, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward delete for the reasons stated by Niteshift36. However, I want to point out that if this is retained, it should be moved to something like Bus number (slang) or Bus number (business term). If the article establishes this term's notability at all, what it establishes is the notability of "bus number," not "high bus number" so limited. What's unfortunate is that the phrase "bus number" still generally means the route number of a public bus, so this article shouldn't simply be moved to Bus number, which doesn't currently exist. If it's deemed inappropriate to move it to Bus number (parenthetical) when there's no Bus number without parenthetical, then the latter should be created as a disambiguation between this term and "the route number of a public transport bus service." Glenfarclas (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. It reads like a dicdef in paragraph form. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 08:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki or rename - Seems to be a reasonable wiktionary article in this, or an article concerning bus numbers in general but there's definitely not enough here to warrant a high bus number stand-alone article. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 13:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Bus factor. This term is reasonably common in software development. Bus Number is sometimes called Truck Number. For those not familiar, c2.com is the original wiki. Tangurena (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G. A rename, of not a merge, is probably in order. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 15:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Defense League Chapters

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

This is the sort of list we ordinarily do not include, according to NOT DIRECTORY Any significant material should go in the main page for the organization. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In general it's better to direct people to an organization's own website for this kind of information since it is constantly changing. Besides that the JDL has been called a terrorist organization so it's probably better for WP not to get involved giving out their addresses. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, but not per Northwestgnome due to WP:NOTCENSORED. Their being labeled a terrorist organisation is not relevant to what information we cover on them. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 05:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First, the JDL is not a terrorist group, nor has it ever been an official one. You can read that in the Jewish Defense League article. More importantly, this article can be deleted, but only when all the information is replaced in the main Jewish Defense League article. All of the info should be retained when transfered back to the main article. The Jewish Defense League Chapters article was created by User:Big Mac, and he removed it from the main Jewish Defense League article. See here.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete Agree with User:Big Mac. I am erasing my previous argument.--Eliscoming1234 (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undelete I spun this article off from the main JDL article because it makes the main article too long, and the list contains too many unfinished or non-substantial sections. However, I think there is enough valuable material to maintain it as a separate article and improve upon it. I disagree about its deletion content-wise but will accept it if the article do not meet Wikipedia standards. JDL is not a terrorist organization and takes a firm no-tolerance policy toward felonious activities, but as was stated previously that is outside the scope of this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big Mac (talk • contribs) 08:43, 4 January 2010 (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, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Big Mac. --Webley455 (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. I believe that notability has been sufficiently demonstrated and there are no other delete votes since changes to the article have been made. JBsupreme (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Earworm

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

Delete. Contested prod, limited notability and does not meet WP:BIO guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 23:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Leaning toward~~ keep because of this, this, and this, though if someone wants to tell me why they're not reliable I'll hear it out. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Glenfarcus. Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DJ Earworm is one of the most recognized mashup artists. Time, The Sun, ABC News establish notability. Gobonobo ^T ^C 03:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Gobonobo as well as plays on Radio 1 in UK and many in the USA I believe. Dotty••|☎ 13:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep changing my vote, per the above sources. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 15:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 03:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bike Rock

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

WP:N, Overcategorization Albert Mond (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have never heard this expression. The definition seems to be very subjective with some songs by a band Bike Rock and others not, and some bands rejected by some bikers. I am sure there is something to this concept/expression but not enough for its own article. Maybe a section in Biker culture about musical tastes? Northwestgnome (talk) 04:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism, per nom and per Northwestgnome. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 06:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge The page is poorly written and in general a bad example of the genre but the genre certainly exists and in fact Bike Rock compilation CD’s are sold usually the heading of “Classic rock, motorcycles.” So perhaps it needs a section there instead of its own page. I am usually the type to fix a poorly written article rather than delete it. Also on a second note it is important to spell the names of proposed deletions correctly otherwise you just send out a dead link. PeRshGo (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unreferenced neologism. Selling CDs called Bike Rock is merely a marketing ploy. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 23:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only reference provided just mentions Steppenwolf, I could find no other references. The article says that the genre is also known as 'trucker rock', not sure why I'm mentioning that but I guess it seemed relevant when I started typing. Sorry for digressing...does not meet WP:GNG J04n(talk page) 03:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with DC. Genres of music are already complicated enough and having this "good drinking music" genre with none of the listed bands linking to this page is useless. Peppage ^tlk 20:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Although the keep votes are in the clear majority, AfD isn't a vote. None of the arguments for retention are based in policy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPPOLIT

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

Non-notable project. All external links provided appear to be first party (e.g. homepage) or basic descriptions. Need some coverage in reliable third party sources to justify. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No arguments provided, so I'm officially casting my own vote (I was withholding to allow someone to provide significant coverage) —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a high standard to meet for chess engines in general. For example Tom_Kerrigan's Simple Chess Program would not meet your standard. If this page goes down, I think we should take see what other pages of Category:Chess engines should be AfD'ed also, as there are many. 98.231.211.65 (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several test results on chess forums available. The article gives several links, one of those is http://www.chesslogik.com/ , which is a third party source. Galaxy07 (talk) 23:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Forums are not reliable sources. Joe Chill (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this series of open source chess engines. Joe Chill (talk) 03:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 98.231.211.65 (talk) 17:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ippolit is one of the top engines on the PlayChess server http://www.playchess.com/stats/engineranking.htm 98.231.211.65 (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The highest rank it has achieved appears to be number 412. And that's still not coverage from a reliable source. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Tremaster (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment This isn't a vote. The idea is to establish, by consensus, whether this meets the guidelines for inclusion for Wikipedia. Thus far, no one has provided a single reliable source that establishes notability. I will withdraw the nomination if one is provided, but without one, keep votes without explanation don't actually contribute to the discussion. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These enignes are new. Therefore they are not yet included in rating lists like CEGT or CCRL. However, several tests tell that the engines are extremely strong. I think this is a good reason for being notable. Galaxy07 (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The counter-argument would be that, once results of those tests are published by reliable sources (not blogs, forums, or what-have-you), then they form the basis of an article - not before. It's possible that the software will be notable, but just isn't yet, and that the article is premature. Notability can change, and if it does so after an article is deleted, we revisit the issue. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Internet and especially software development is a fast business today, so much information is shared on forums/blogs/wikis only.

In this case, in addition, some people claim that the engines are illegal (which is stated in the article). For this reason, it could be possible that these engines would never appear on a official rating list.

The engines are notable especially because of this controversy. Even if illegal, they will definitely influence the development of future engines, since they reveal ideas that were not present in open source engines before. The future engines that will just use this ideas and not the code will be legal, since there is no copyright on ideas.

Think about it this way: There would be to reason for the Rybka autor Vasik Rajlich to forbid the mention of these engines and to claim that they are illegal if they were not notable. Galaxy07 (talk) 02:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This thing is the strongest chess engine available, which is definitely notable. However, there is reason to believe that it is based on a decompiled version of Rybka. Even though there is no real proof for this, the program is banned on most chess servers. So we have to make an ethical decision here: Should Wikipedia contribute to the distribution of software that is possibly illegal? Greetings, Stefan64 (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This engine is proved to be stronger than Rybka 3 actually, and is not playing exactly with a Rybka 3 style, which should take the 'Clone' accusation gone. A clone could not dominate the original THAT much and features within the engine are totally different. Many engine plays same style because leaded from an opening book, conclusions might be the same for some moves, this doesn't mean that it is a clone. STOP the accusation!! Soulstone 24.37.137.106 (talk) 2:15, January 12 2010

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn Prezbo (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moralistic therapeutic deism

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

Isn't this the very definition of 'something someone made up in school one day'? One or two persons wrote up a single article using the term, and based on what is in the greater scheme a very small study. The article is also hopelessly biased. Example: it says "These beliefs, some of which are incompatible with Christianity, are practiced in some Christian churches." No real source for the incompatibility claim, just some extremist saying that these are not real Christians (according to them). What it really means to say is there is a small and shrinking percent of Christians who think that good people do not go to Heaven, and that God does not want people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, and that it is wrong to be happy, unless you also buy into only their narrow skew on Christianity. So, the article falsely depicts the standard view practiced as doctrinally wrong, and tries to make it out to be immoral. This is not even getting to the insulting misuse of deism. Torquemama007 (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - see below.

Delete. It is not encyclopedic. While it is sourced, it could be better organized and I question the notability of the article. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 22:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Irrespective of any current deficiencies in the article, the term is notable, since it is discussed extensively in sources that are reliable for theological subject matter:
[4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
[10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Jennifer500 (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The difference between things made up in school and this is that this is causing a fair old stir up. The article is referenced, there are plenty of ghits. The fact that some people don't like it is irrelevant. Misleading? I don't think the article is. The theology described might be, but that's not the point. The point is that it has been noticed and noted, and discussed. Peridon (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. It's got significant and ongoing coverage in reliable sources.[15] I removed the nominator's personal opinions from the end of the article; they should re-read Wikipedia:No original research. Fences&Windows 01:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 01:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's not made up in school. It's a published academic concept that has been extensively quoted and analysed. Perfect for an encyclopedia. I suggest you withdraw this nomination. - Richard Cavell (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a term of fairly widespread use, at least among Christians who pay attention to such matters, and as the references show. It's an attempt at finding a label for the American folk religion, and contrasting that belief system with Christian orthodoxy. The version I read has references to Christianity Today and The New Republic, which suggests that they were added since the nomination, but they are relevant and they are there. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I see it is only used in an echo-chamber of "anti-Christian" Christian extremists. Torquemama007 (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability of the term within its cultural milieu has been demonstrated - we need not show that the expression has currency in every possible theological context. Jennifer500 (talk) 19:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - But it's framed like this is a generally accepted term, which it surely is not. Torquemama007 (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems well cited and notable. LotLE×talk 20:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--the links pan out. Whether or not something is the "right" use of a term or phrase is not a subject for Wikipedia to adjudicate; we merely collect and report what RS have said, and this is clearly covered by multiple independent RS. Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I frankly think that if this was "notable" the rather intense position of the proponents of the term would have drawn some commentary from the mainstream. But I can see where this is going, so if there's something I need to do to give up and end this vote now, tell me and I will go ahead and do that. Torquemama007 (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've taken the liberty of striking out your nomination. - Richard Cavell (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Enigma^msg 22:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liz walaszczyk

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

Contested PROD. The subject does not meet the general notability guidelines for a Wikipedia article. A search turned up no significant independent coverage of the individual. Jezebel'sPonyo ^shhh 21:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Self-promotional autobiography for person of dubious notability. Jennifer500 (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, Jennifer500 was blocked for ban evasion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original prodder. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jennifer. Alio The Fool 19:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear case of WP:AUTO (subject and username are identical). Nothing on Google news. Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hells Canyon Motorcycle Rally

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

Few reliable sources to back up the notability of a minor motorcycle rally. I've tried to de-advertise it and remove some of the enthusiastic tone to it, but here's what the sources say, and a remark on the sources:

Bend Weekly, a neighborhood blog masquerading as a reliable source (published by DCEI), discusses many of the crashes that happened one year.
The Baker City Herald is a paper for a city of 10,000 in a county of nearly 17,000. Probably a decently reliable source, but the articles ("http://www.bakercityherald.com/Local-News/Camping-motorcyclists-raise-money-for-BHS-sports", "Police report few problems with rally") don't really discuss the rally in depth, just discuss it in passing (not surprising, if the attendance really is 5000, that's a significant size compared to the size of the county).
The Oregonian is cited with a title of "Two still critical after rash of motorcycle accidents". A (offline) search of the Oregonian database doesn't bring up this article. It does bring up two references in the travel section in a listing of upcoming events, similar to a gig listing. In any case, even assuming good faith that the article exists, the title indicates it is also talking about the crashes, not the rally.
A reference to the US Geological Survey is only included to discuss Hells Canyon, not the rally.
pdxbiker.com references an article written by the event creator. It's a well-done blog, but still just a blog.

In short, there are few reliable sources discussing the event other than to indicate that it exists. Because of this, it fails WP:SIGCOV. tedder (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unexceptional motorcycle rally that draws only 5,000 riders; there are hundreds of similar events around the country. With some exceptions that deserve more scrutiny, Category:Motorcycle rallies in the United States mostly contains events that draw from tens to hundreds of thousands of people -- and most importantly for us, get overage in national media, not local papers. Needs more than just WP:ROUTINE event coverage, which I couldn't find after searching in Google, ProQuest and General OneFile. --Dbratland (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This may be more self promotion of the event for the purpose of search engine placement.Virillion (talk) 03:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal Matrix

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

No reliable independent sources found to establish notability of this TV pilot apparently seeking distribution. Sources given are company press releases and company website. LuckyLouie (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've looked through everything Google brings up, and I see no reliable sources to verify any of this. Delete it, and if the status changes, it can be recreated. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 11:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This WEEK in FUN

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

Was tagged as CSD A7, but it has already been through CSD and PROD in the past, so I'm bringing it here to discuss. Reach Out to the Truth 20:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this podcast. Joe Chill (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article seems to have a good chunk of articles that link to it internally and gets quite a few google hits. Although its not mainstream it is far from not notable. It is also one of the few non tech related podcasts on the TWiT.tv (network) further strengthening the reason for its inclusion. andyzweb (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to add a note that if this AfD passes I am going on a witch hunt for any other poorly cited or referenced podcasts on wikipedia and nominate the them for AfD andyzweb (talk) 05:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do so as it will benefit us all.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.38.71 (talk)

lrn2sign ~~~~ andyzweb (talk) 05:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No citations. Still no justifiable reason to have an entry. if Andyzweb wants it kept, put your money where your mouth is and rewrite the entire article. As it stands this is superfluous nonsense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.38.71 (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This podcast has zero Google News Books and Scholar hits, and only 134 regular Google hits. Abductive (reasoning) 05:39, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legend Recordings

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

non-notable record label Rapido (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's nothing to establish notability here. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage from reliable sources. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 23:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Minus Recordings

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

non-notable record label Rapido (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essence (2010 film)

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

From my original prod: I can find no references for this film. If it's still in production, it fails WP:NFF and should not have an article.

From Noq's prod2: Appears to be a hoax. Image has been badly photoshopped to change the film title from something like "... of death". Article creator loaded the image and claimed it as their own work and released under creative commons - unlikely for a movie poster. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my prod2 rationale. IP user that removed the prod also removed a speedy tag from another article created by the same editor as this article. noq (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources. Most likely a hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any sources (although this may be due to the nature of the title). Fails WP:N if not WP:NFF. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 21:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable, and send that image up for FfD. This smells of a hoax; but any sources that may exist are well-hidden with this title. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the nomination statement and comments by Noq, unnotable film that absolutely stinks of a hoax. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 00:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - probably WP:HOAX. Nothing I can find on Google news. Either way, doesn't seem verifiable or to have received significant coverage. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Hyde

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

Non notable person. I was not able to find him in three sources he gave. I was too lazy to look them all, but I think anyway he wasn't on the other ones. MW talk contribs 19:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Also, appears to be an autopromo. --MW talk contribs 19:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: could you elaborate on why you feel that this is an auto-promo? DigitalC (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He appears notable in his field of chiropractic: he's an author of published books, lectured, and held key positions in trade associations. Also, the editor has written many Wikipedia articles on chiropractic, and is currently working on one in his userspace; also a bio of a chiropractor (~~although this one has passed away -~~ obviously not self-promotional). I have seen his name mentioned in some (but not all) citations. Me Three (talk to me) 20:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. This man is a household name in this field. He is, in fact, mentioned clearly in each of the references given. I wrote this piece, and it was NOT solicited in any way by the subject, so the "auto-promo" allegation is just wrong. He was Secretary-General (and is still editor of their newsletter) for FICS (Which is a "notable" International Organization. BTW: in many Int'l agencies, the Secretary-general is the real power behind the throne. (also BTW MeThree; Winterstein is a BLP, Janse has passed.)^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 20:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I've struck my note about the passing above. I suppose BLP applies on AfD pages too. Sorry! Me Three (talk to me) 13:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Probably just squeaks by WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. See analysis of sources on article's talk page. ^Bongo_matic 22:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment)It should be clear to anyone who follows certain editors around, that some people feel that there is practically no one in the Chiropractic who is "notable" for Wiki, unless they are infamous, in which case these people would love to publicize that. However, it should be said, that in each profession, and in each niche area, there are those who are very well known, and have contributed much to their particular fields, and thus THEY are notable for that. Wiki:BIO makes that pretty clear, but still Chiropractic's foes will try to limit any good exposure for the profession.

As to the presence in other news media is concerned, the argument is specious as Dynamic Chiropractic has already many times been determined to be sufficient to establish "notability" (it would seem for exactly my argument here. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 21:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article needs to be cleaned up, so it looks less like a CV and more like an encyclopedia article. However, he certainly seems notable within his field. Listed as "Person of the Year" by Dynamic Chiropractic (a reliable source), member of the commission that created the Mercy Guidelines (positive contribution to the field), "Chiropractic Sports Physician of the Year" by the Florida Chiropractic Association. He has had several high level positions with organizations within the field of Sports Chiropractic, including president of the ACA sports council, secretary general of the International Federation of Sports Chiropractic, and liason between FICS and the World Olympians Association. He was appointed by the Florida House of Representatives to the "Florida Olympics and Pan American Games task force". This is clearly not simply a sports chiropractor, chiropractor, or typical professor. DigitalC (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DigitalC. He's notable enough for inclusion here. The article just needs to be cleaned up, as are all articles created by the creator of the article. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the "sources" are in fact papers he has published; they do not actually indicate his notability directly. The other appointments are normal business appointments but they don't make the individual notable themselves. Read carefully too: he's not been president of ACA, he was president of its Sport Council for a time. If being a local leader in your profession is enough to be notable, then we've opened the floodgates. Shadowjams (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment) I have asked Shadowjams to reconsider his position, as Dr. Hyde was Secretary-General of a Notable WORLD agency (not just a national sports council), and continues to work with the WORLD Olympians Association. I think this was just a miscommunication, i.e. I think he just voted before he truly read this.^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 22:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate DR bringing the issue here, but after consideration I still stand by my original response, incorporating of course what he points out about the individual's professional positions. Shadowjams (talk) 09:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Shadowjams. I would like an outside source that specifically quotes something about him asserting his notability. All assertions of notability are for very minor things, and even in their aggregate they don't seem to confer notability, climbed mountains, represented chiropractors at international games, but not team physician. He was one of many, a number of times, and this is written about only by the subject himself. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 21:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Comment] Are you people not reading the Bio, or just want to attack anything Chiropractic? One guy says; he's not notable because he was "only the president of a sports council" and completely overlooks that he was SECRETARY-GENERAL of the WORLD agency. The next, 69. something, attacks everything I do, and now claims that the man who was US TEAM DOCTOR at the PAN AM Games in 1987, and TEAM DOCTOR for the Miami Dolphins, "was not a team doctor"!! Literacy counts! What's really going on here???^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 01:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree with Digital C and Brangifer here. As the Secretary General of a world agency which is notable under wiki policy, he should be, himself, considered notable by that virtue alone. The fact that he was listed as the person of the year by a notable source, and his other qualifications seem to confirm this. I'm beginning to share DR's conviction that there is some kind of conspiracy against anything showing chiropractic in a positive light on wiki. Waynethegoblin (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC) — Waynethegoblin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I vote to keep: I hear this mans speak in Amsterdam. He is very well know in alternative medicine circles.Wikibacmd 22:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikibacdoctor (talk • contribs) — Wikibacdoctor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. }

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Shropshire Golf Centre

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

No assertion as to why this golf club is notable. Web search throws up a few potential RSs, but most are travel guides and similar publications with little more info than its location. HJMitchell You rang? 19:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --MW talk contribs 20:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of reliable sources. Travel guides prove it exists, not that it's notable. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 23:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as notable as any other average golf course. Nothing in the news to indicate this is the location of a tournament or somesuch; nothing else to indicate notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Bazonka (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Enigma^msg 22:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Craig 'Lazie' Lynch

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

Seems to be classic WP:BLP1E. Also WP:NOTNEWS. Timotheus Canens (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Borderline speedy deletion, this guy is certainly not notable. WP:BLP1E applies. Fences&Windows 19:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 19:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Certainly non notable. --MW talk contribs 20:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Not speedy as this story has been reported, but this smacks of one of his mates trying to build his profile. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) by a long way. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly a case of WP:BLP1E, and hardly even that. Clearly NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is more like a case of BLPzeroE, I totally LOL'd at the "internet sensation" claim. JBsupreme (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—BLPzeroE has it exactly right, with the additional benefit of being hilarious. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BLP1E. This seems to be the only thing that would confer notability. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep, references added and notability proven. (non-admin closure) ~DC _{Talk To Me} 23:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bentley & Skinner

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

non notable jewelers WuhWuzDat 18:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's see, we have a company started in 1880, jeweler to the royal family, and the first three gnews hits are significant pieces in Reuters[16], the Daily Mail[17] and the Independent [18]. Add to that 21 hits in gbooks. Where exactly is notability not satisfied? (Full disclosure -- I already declined a spam speedy the nom placed on the article one minute after creation)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but the material above needs to be added. DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per verified notability now shown in article. Its a sad fact that stubs like this will be nominated from time to time, but I guess that does get them improved.--Milowent (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. Clearly notable. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 21:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - completely non-borderline. — James Kalmar 22:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SK #1 and #2. No request for deletion, and per checkuser there is also abusive sockpuppetry by Webley455 (talk · contribs) and Chimro (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Keller (televangelist)

AfDs for this article:

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

Merge with Live Prayer and Redirect. Bill Keller is not notable for anything that is not associated with Live Prayer. For all practical intents and purposes he is Live Prayer. He's the only minister to have hosted the television show, he's the only one writing the daily devotionals, etc... Having two separate articles will ultimately just confuse editors and readers about where to put things and where to look for them. We can see this already as things related to Live Prayer -- the show being cancelled due to complaints from CAIR -- are being mentioned on this article. Webley455 (talk) 18:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move various parts from Life Church to Bill Keller, such as "Howard Stern appearance" and various criticism made by Keller. That would be a better way to avoid any "confusion" between the two articles. Eugeniu B 1 19:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Perhaps you are not as familiar with the subject as I am. The Howard Stern appearance was aired under the title "Live Prayer with Bill Keller on Howard 101." The criticisms are all also intimately related to both subjects. Bill Keller "prophesied" that John Kerry would win in 2004 through the Live Prayer ministry. --Webley455 (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe WP:CFORK applies here. Please consider that when making your decisions. --Webley455 (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if that is the case. Splitting out an NPOV article is not a content fork. Maybe WP:UNDUE? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. -Chimro (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redir back into Live Prayer. I split it out because there was a WP:SPLIT request and it a seemed reasonable request. In retrospect though Keller does not seem to be notable outside of Live Prayer. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability as been established, and the article was re-written per the concerns made. (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 04:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atomic Swindlers

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

Declined speedy, non-notable band. Ridernyc (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite article. Have found significant coverage sufficient to pass criterion one of WP:BAND and WP:GNG [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], and [25]. I will incorporate these an rewrite the article tonight unless someone beats me to it. J04n(talk page) 18:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They have a bit of buzz, but have gone no where in 5 years, no one listens to them [26], a self published CD and a few reviews is not enough for notability. Ridernyc (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND, according to the article their music is self-released. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per J04n. Joe Chill (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, looks like sufficient coverage to me. Polarpanda (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the newly located sources look sufficient and I trust J04n to improve the article accordingly. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
note: The article has been completely rewritten incorporating features from unquestionable reliable sources (Village Voice and PopMatters) as well as several other lesser sources. BTW an AfD tag was never placed on the article after the CSD was declined. J04n(talk page) 03:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above sources which have been incorporated into the article. Subject passes WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 07:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 03:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

District Jinnah Public School And College Mandi Bhauldin

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

Fails to meet the general notability guidelines, cannot be deleted via CSD. Taqi Haider (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of the article says that it offers education from preschool to 12th grade. If that can be verified, then keep, noting that the article requires substantial cleanup and should probably be renamed to something like District Jinnah Public School and College. High schools are per se notable. Timotheus Canens (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Timotheus Canens (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it has a high school, assuming existence can be verified.--Milowent (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Schools are assumed notable, however we do not need a page on wikipedia about every high schools that exists in Pakistan, the school in question is an unremarkable one and there are thousands of such schools in the country. Taqi Haider (talk) 17:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - verifiably contains a high school. Wikipedia is not paper so the number of high schools in Pakistan is not relevant. TerriersFan (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All high schools are notable. The sole reference in the article (subscription only) verifies the existence of the school. Cunard (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manhattan Institute

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

non notable commercial training school WuhWuzDat 17:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This article was created by a SPA to promote the institution. Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well-stated nom. Toddst1 (talk) 07:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-accredited and non-degree-granting training school; no reliable sources can be found that prove its notability. Bearian (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- article stated it was accredited by an group that didn't have it on its list of accredited schools. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's some reasonable indication that this individual may in fact pass the notability guideline, but it remains somewhat unclear as the coverage is somewhat sparse. There is currently no consensus either way; although the suggestion of a merge to his father's article if this one can't be fleshed out more is a valid one. ~ mazca ^talk 01:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard de Lattre de Tassigny

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

Bernard de Lattre de Tassigny is noted only as the son of Jean de Lattre de Tassigny. He has no separate notability and, without sounding callous, this is covered appropriately in the parent article. Has no significant awards or career to earn the subject separate inclusion. SGGH ^ping! 17:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete I have to agree, it does not seem he is notable except as someones son.Slatersteven (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete it is already in the article for his father, so no need to merge. DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not inherited. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep he did receive the highest purely military award in the French military, the Médaille militaire, at seventeen making him the youngest soldier to win the medal. After his death his funeral was held at the Invalides and was extended to be one in memory of all those killed in Indochina. He was also the patron of the 1984-85 class of the École militaire interarmes. A book has been written about him, “Un destin héroïque Bernard de Lattre”, by Robert Garric, a notable French author, who have a page at the French Wikipedia. Carl Logan (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Médaille militaire is not (in the context of bravery) the highest French award. It is only considered thus if given for leadership and can in that instance only be given to generals and admirals who had been commanders-in-chief. Also after WW1 it was given as a wound award. What is odd is that it can only be given to privates and Non-coms for bravery, Commissioned officers are not eligible.Slatersteven (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this source might help with expanding the article a little. Also, this search produced quite a few hits if someone wanted to try to improve the article. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source you provide is interesting, it seems to say his award of the Médaille militaire was for being seriously wounded, in its wound badge capacity, and not as a result of exceptioanl bravery. We need more informationm as to why his was awarded this decoration.Slatersteven (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I got a fair amount of hits on Google Books. It seems there was a book (or maybe booklet) published about him in 1952, see here: Un destin héroïque Bernard de Lattre : récits et lettres recueillis et présentés par Robert Garric. He may not meet the MLHIST notability guidelines for people, but there has been enough response to his death in general that he may meet the general notability guidelines. Trouble is, most of the sources are in French, and while most of them are about his death and not the response to his death, I can't reliably tell which are which. The French and Vietnamese Wikipedia articles also seem to have more details than our article. Carcharoth (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t find any reference to him being the youngest solder to win the Médaille militaire I can’t even find any list of recipients with his name on (which may just mean they are not complete, which hardly speaks volumes about his notability). There are references to him receiving it though, all of which is a bit perplexing. Most of the material also seems to be no better then our current article. Basically it seems he was not an exceptional officer and was only well known because he was the son of a general.Slatersteven (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The information that he was youngest person to recieve the medal comes from "Three Marshal of France" by Anthony Clayton, page 158. Carl Logan (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've looked some more at the sources here, and there is enough here for a separate Wikipedia article, IMO.
- (1) The best online source appears to be 30/05/51 - Lieutenant Bernard de Lattre de Tassigny (23 ans) 1er Chasseur, from the soldatsdefrance website (Google translation). There is another biography online here that gives further details (Google translation), including that he was part of the French resistance during the Second World War. That may be over-stating it, but this source says that he helped his father escape Vichy France to join the Free French (I may be getting some terms wrong there). More on that here in Newsweek.
- (2) His death received widespread coverage. It was because of who he was, but that doesn't make the coverage any less widespread or notable. 1951 article in TIME magazine.
- (3) His funeral was LIFE magazine picture of the week in the 25 June 1951 issue.
- (4) There was the book (mentioned earlier) that was published about him. See here. Un destin héroïque Bernard de Lattre : récits et lettres recueillis et présentés par Robert Garric - which translates as "A heroic destiny Bernard de Lattre: narratives and letters collected and presented by Robert Garric." It sounds like a tribute publication, and almost certainly is, but it is precisely the reaction to his death that makes him notable. The blog that tells us about this book that was published says "The loss touched France which opened a little, eyes on the conflict which took place at the end of the world." If someone had full access to the French sources, I am almost certain that we would find that there was a strong reaction in the French press to this death, and this is why it is mentioned often in histories of this war. At the least, this needs to be mentioned not just in his father's article, but also the article about the war, and any section covering the response of the press and the French public and the world press to this death.
- (5) Two more example of wider press coverage: French General Flies Home With Only Son's Body (The Hartford Courant, 3 June 1951) and FRENCH CHIEF'S SON SLAIN; Lieut. Bernard de Lattre Dies in Combat in Indo-China (The New York Times, 31 May 1951).
- (6) His death is still being commemorated very recently: 2007 and 2008. Some translated comments from those webpages: "In memory of Bernard de Lattre. Organized by the district committee of the French Memorial in collaboration with the Municipality of Wildenstein, the memorial mass in memory of Bernard de Lattre de Tassigny, followed by a patriotic ceremony, witnessed a large crowd. Besides the 18 standard bearers representing many patriotic societies with chairmen and members, several mayors and elected representatives of villages, ancient Indochina and anonymous attended the memorial mass in memory of Bernard de Lattre de Tassigny, who died in Indochina the age of 23." and "The memorial. Fervor and reverence for the section of St-Amarin Remembrance French who celebrated St. Bernard, in memory of Bernard De Lattre de Tassigny around the Chapel of Our Lady of Joy. So, last Sunday, the retired priest Charles Thierry officiated enhanced by the choir Husseren under the direction of Michael Haller, attended by delegates from 17 associations patriotic Township Saint-Amarin with flags, and Christian Baron , cousin of Bernard de Lattre, from the Paris region." Even if something got missed in translation, I think the general thrust is clear.
- (7) If you want meta-discussion of all this, try this (Cultured Force: Makers and Defenders of the French Colonial Empire, By Barnett Singer, John Langdon). And here we have more discussion of the impact on the family, including references to noblesse oblige and the father general asking his wife for forgiveness. And here we are told that his father told the American people on television that his only son had died for them and the free world. There are also multiple comments that "In all, 21 sons of French marshals and generals died in Indochina" (see here) - so there is a case for making a list of those 21 sons of marshals and generals that died in that war, and the sources comment on Bernard de Lattre de Tassigny as the first of them to die. I did see some source somewhere referring to this in the wider context of generals sending their sons into battle throughout history (this happened in other wars as well), but unfortunately I can't find that now.
  - Comment I'm probably going to incite some anger or something with this comment, but I feel it still must be said. As great as the sources you've provided are, there is one thing that really bothers me about them: they all are either trivial mentions or (more frequently) mention his father primarily. Take a look at the title of some of the sources: "FRENCH CHIEF'S SON SLAIN" and "War: Soldier's Son", just to name two that stood out at me. What bothers me is that it seems the only reason he is being noticed is because of his father. If some notable actor's son died at the age of one, you would probably get a lot of sources too, but it still wouldn't be fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia. I am totally in agreement with this information being present in his father's article, and perhaps have this article be a redirect to his father, but I don't think he's deserving of his own article right now as pretty much everything just seems to mention his death in relation to his father. Fun counterpoint in the interest of neutrality and provoking discussion: Disregarding WP:NOTINHERITED right now, are all of these sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG? Counter-counterpoint: Does that encroach on WP:BLP1E? --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As best I can make out, Bernard de Lattre de Tassigny's death transcended his military career and due to the circumstances (the war being fought, and him being the son of the general), there was a marked reaction to his death, and it is still being commented on and remembered today. At the very least, some of this material needs to be added to his father's article, and at the least the name of Bernard de Lattre de Tassigny should redirect there. Carcharoth (talk) 03:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Satguru Brahmanandji Maharaj Bhuriwale

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

No independent coverage to build a neutral article that can be verified, no indication that person passes WP:BIO. MLauba (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —MLauba (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. This is probably also a promotional piece since someone closely connected to the subject had to give OTRS permission to use copyrighted material for the article. Them From Space 19:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Fails WP:BIO.nt notable enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linguisticgeek (talk • contribs) 07:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 19:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources have been found/added and the article has been cleaned up (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 03:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Sartorelli

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

The only source is an autobio; as such, fails WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 15:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete no real coverage of this person [27]. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference, and I think that the book references found "Sergio Sartorelli" here indicate notability. - Eastmain (talk) 09:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I Still don't think it passes WP:BIO. References talk about Sartorelli in minor, minor detail; standard form is that "Sergio Sartorelli is the designer of X, which features, among other things, adjustable windows, etc etc etc" for 2 pages. That doesn't really count as significant coverage. Ironholds (talk) 09:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination fails WP:BEFORE as there are clearly other sources for this notable designer. I have performed some cleanup on the article and added another source. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a copvio/plagiarism. Majorly talk 18:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. copvio[sic]/plagiarism of what? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This. Majorly talk 22:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not anymore. Dreadstar ☥ 06:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - seems borderline to me, but there are some sources available like [28] (in German) and [29] (in Italian), which are probably enough for notability. Robofish (talk) 17:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets minimum requirements of WP:BIO, including the 'enduring historical record' of his design work on automobiles such as the Type 34 Karmann Ghia, Ford OSI 20 M Coupe, the Fiat 2300 S Coup, Fiat 126, and the Fiat Ritmo, among others. Dreadstar ☥ 19:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based fon his work indesign, for which there are adequate sources. DGG ( talk ) 19:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets threshold for inclusion. Notable as a designer, and per DGG, adequate sources.(olive (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BIO enough 3rd party coverage. RP459 (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Dusti^SPEAK!! 03:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Griffiths

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

Fails to meet the requirements of WP:BIO. Griffiths has been on a few local committees and appears most notable for failing to get elected in a federal election, being the son of someone rich and rich enough to own a hockey team. Unless he's so rich he's notable for being rich or a notably talented hockey team owner in the "field" of ownership, I see nothing here of sustaining historic and encyclopaedic notability. Ash (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —DJSasso (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the former owner of the Vancouver Canucks which is a top level professional hockey team, he is clearly notable. And with the many references on the page he meets WP:GNG and WP:V. There is no requirement that a person be talented to have an article, they must just be notable. Arthur Griffiths shows up in the national media very often as an NHL owner amongst other things. This is all that is required to meet the notability guidelines. Either way he has also been inducted into the British Columbia Hockey Hall of Fame which shows there is a talent. -DJSasso (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Would he be considered notable enough currently to meet WP:BIO? Possibly not. Would he have been considered notable enough a dozen years ago? Yes. Not only does notability does not expire, there's nothing about inherited wealth debarring one from it. Ravenswing 16:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry if the nomination seems anti-rich, just pointing out that being rich may indeed be a criteria for notability but probably not in Griffiths' case. Are you saying that it is sufficient to have run and failed to get a notable political position to be notable?—Ash (talk) 17:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think he is referring to his time owning a high level professional sports team through which he was often in the news nationally and internationally. He was household name in Canada for awhile. This isn't some low level failed politician. -DJSasso (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was absolutely to what I was referring. Suggesting that I was saying that his political run was notable is not only a straw man argument, it of course runs foul of WP:POLITICIAN. Ravenswing 18:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are several distinct claims of notability here, and taken as a whole this person is clearly notable enough for an article. No problem with sourcing. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a professional sports team owner, that alone should be enough to make him notable. While the article is obviously in poor shape, it does not stop him from being notable, and there is plenty written about him that could, and should, be used to improve the article. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs cleaning up but then again so does alot of the pedia. notable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – In addition to the references in the article (reference 2 in particular offers substantial coverage), a Google News search in the 1990-99 archives shows a bunch of articles mentioning him. Included in these are a couple Toronto Star articles (pay-per-view) that appear to be focused on Griffiths on the first two pages. Judging from the intro I can view, one of them indicates that he was also involved with the formation of an NBA franchise, the former Vancouver Grizzlies. There should be more than enough there to show notability on top of what is already in the article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 05:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. Patken4 (talk) 13:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep - The weather outside is frightful -Pparazorback (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - appears to satisfy WP:BIO, since notability never expires. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Insufficient substantial coverage to comply with the notability guidelines for companies. The sources presented are weak and composed primarily of press releases. ~ mazca ^talk 00:59, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unitask

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

WP:CORP article supported only from press releases created by the same account that created all the WP:ARTSPAM at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dragon_View_(software). Pcap ping 16:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Pcap ping 16:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of any reliable sources, and Google News finds none. If I think it's a non-notable tech business, that's one thing; if Pcap thinks so too, the handwriting is on the wall. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems adequately cited and adequately notable. LotLE×talk 20:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it notable? Joe Chill (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The refs are misleading. The last one for instance claims to be Reuters, but it's just [30] a press release, not an actual Reuters story. Pcap ping 20:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but with the understanding that the article needs citations from reputable media sources, like this page from BusinessWeek: http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=22685213 . Historymike (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That link is the definition of routine coverage. Just a very short profile and contact info. It's not even a news story. Pcap ping 02:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources provided. Miami33139 (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sara Houghteling

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

Fails to meet WP:AUTHOR requirements. Sources currently quoted are publicity, blogs, self published and a book review. I find few sources on the Avery Jules Hopwood Novel Contest but this does not appear to be an internationally recognized award. Searching Google News shows similar matches and no fresh sources specifically about Houghteling that establish notability sufficient to address the requirements for a biography page for someone who has published a single book. Checking the Amazon sales rank, the book rates 748,809 (i.e. selling about one copy per month). Ash (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book was given a full review by the NYT, whichis normally sufficient for notability. The question is whether to have the article on the author or the book, and if the author is living, as here, they are likely to write more books, so this is where there is potential for expansion. DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons given by DGG.05:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep. Houghteling and her novel are receiving more notice. I see plenty of good sources available to expand this into a good article and I will be happy to work on it if it is kept. --Sainge.spin (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Klactoveedsedstene

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

non notable software WuhWuzDat 16:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. Tone is also rather spammy, though this can be fixed. Also note WP:COI by creator: [31]. MuffledThud (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NJA (t/c) 10:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon View (software)

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

This appears to be WP:ARTSPAM. I wasn't able to find significant secondary coverage of this software. Google news is full of press releases about this, but only [32] [33] appear to be independent of the subject, and mention it in a couple of senteces. Given that these are CPA-targeted publications, the coverage seems trivial. The wiki article is also full of references used for WP:Bombardment purposes that don't directly discuss this software, but only the use XBRL technology in SOX, SEC, etc. Pcap ping 15:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update. This seems to be a long-term spam campaign conducted by the same user Special:Contributions/Niente21. Also nominating the following articles sharing the same problems:

Dragon Tag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Crossfire Analyst (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
CrossTag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Rivet Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Pcap ping 16:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 15:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Clear Use of wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising and promotion for "Rivet Software" and related Products. References given do not appear to confer notability; Nothing more than Advertisements masquerading as articles.--Hu12 (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as it's essentially indisputable that this is a case of Wikipedia being used as advertising. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. References offered to the Dragon View article are press releases or government documents that nowhere mention the product. The publisher, Rivet Software, presents a similar situation, being mentioned in passing only in an article about the format required of corporate filings to the SEC. And let's face it: this is about a business that makes software to allow other businesses to format their data for filings required by the Securities and Exchange Commission. This no doubt is a worthwhile and useful thing. But any notability guideline that allowed in a commercial business of this sort as an encyclopedia subject would not be doing its job. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If this were software well-known for its use by accountants, e.g. QuickBooks, then it would warrant inclusion, but these products are hardly covered even in specialist venues. Pcap ping 21:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all if Pcap doesn't seem to think it is notable I sure won't. I trust his assessment to lack of coverage (but not the reverse :)). Miami33139 (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just been called a "reference nazi", so maybe you should trust me some more. Otherwise, what are you in that respect? ;-) Pcap ping 22:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NJA (t/c) 10:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

HOCR (software)

(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) 15:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 20:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly. This is about an optical character reader for Hebrew script. Google News, Books, and Scholar haven't heard of it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is GPL licensed free software; I, as a matter of principle, do not support the deletion of Free software (software libre) projects. Samboy (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These types of !votes don't help save an article in AfD. Joe Chill (talk) 23:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In keeping with NPOV, the license is largely irrelevant at AfD. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Samboy. LotLE×talk 20:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This doesn't address the notability. Joe Chill (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, no article. The authors who wrote the article would be those best informed to provide those sources. Miami33139 (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This doesn't seem to have an article in Hebrew Wikipedia; and Google translation of the wikibook linked from our article reads like product documentation of the sort that should be hosted by the software's maintainers, not the Wikimedia Foundation. These are both bad signs. —Korath (Talk) 07:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Wikipedia is not a software directory, and we do not give special treatment to applications just because they happen to be licensed under the GPL. I'm not sure where that notion came from. We require non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications (plural). Full stop. JBsupreme (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent sources equals no article. All the keep !votes are just "I like it". 16x9 (talk) 01:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I was able to find a fair number of references to this software in Israeli Linux blogs, e.g. [34] the blogs of this Israeli online Linux magazine, but apparently nothing raises to the level of WP:RS. There was also a conference presentation by the software's author, and a passing mention in [35] Ynet. But that seems to be it. User:Okedem, who is native Hebrew speaker, wasn't able to find significant coverage either. Pcap ping 17:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. No rationale was specified by the nominator, and there are no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda (Wii)

The_Legend_of_Zelda_(Wii) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

No rationale has been provided by the nominator for why this article should be deleted. The article describes an upcoming video game, and a quick search has found numerous media references to this game. Keep. -Nick^talk 16:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nintendo CEO Iwata confirmed it on IGN and creator Miyamoto also confirmed, plus there are aton of games and movies that have articals that will be released after this gaame so there is no reason to delete it.--Saint Pedrolas J. ^{Hohohohohoh merry christmas} 20:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. This is probably one of the most pointless AfDs I have ever seen. This is an article about an upcoming game from a critically acclaimed series. It is highly notable, and there is no reason to delete it. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but this is well beyond a rumor. Nintendo's confirmation in it of itself satisfies WP:N. 2 says you, says two 05:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is official news now. No longer speculation. Faythoffenrir (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a confirmed game from a clearly notable series of games. Plus the nom didn't give a reason for why it should be deleted. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Pokémon is a "clearly notable series of games" and Pokémon HeartGold and SoulSilver wasn't un-merged until a month before the Japan release date, because we were waiting for more information to actually build an article. Super Mario Galaxy 2 has an article because it has a good amount of information released about it, as you can see from the gameplay section. I see no reason why this game is any different. As it game might be notable, it doesn't have much to stand on. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 16:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nintendo i believe has confirmed the release this year, so were not exactly Crystal balling here. In addition there is no reason presented by the nominater on why the article should be deleted. Until a valid reason is presented i have to err on keeping Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dischromatics Ltd

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

Non-notable company. Has only one suitable reference (own website) the rest being facebook or myspace or blog pages. No google hits beyond these self-publishes sources, or googlenews hits. Website does not suggest notability, only one location in South Wales. Does not appear to be a multi-chain or national/international company. SGGH ^ping! 15:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that with some rewording and some other sources, this page will be suitable as it is a company that has been around a very long time and that distributes all over Europe --█▄█▄█ █▄█▄█ █▄▄ 15:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Could you please find some sources, then? And please, for the love of god, tone down your signature. Ironholds (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but this AfD is completely unnecessary - it's already being CSDd. SSGH, can I request that you wait until all other options are exhausted before AfDing in the future? Ironholds (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I do not view the article as being an outright CSD candidate - hence AfDing it. SGGH ^ping! 16:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dischromatics pioneered a technique to allow drying of ink on 5,25" floppy disks, and as such was the only company in the World offering this at that time. Sources are naturally difficult to find online due to the timing of this innovation and it being surpassed quickly by the 3,5" diskette. Hard copy sources are being sought. I hope this clarifies the relevance of this article. (SpencerGJ)
Delete. This is apparently a business that manufactures DVDs, CDs, and floppy discs. While these are ultimately consumer products, the process of their manufacture really isn't something that the end consumer really engages in. This kind of business really can't support a stand alone article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my previous comment regarding an innovation with regards to a print method (ie to prevent smudging of inks), from Wikipedia rules etc I understand this development in the floppy disk market right at the beginning of the 1990's is worthy of documenting the history of. (spencergj) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.80.249 (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added much of the detail surrounding the innovative process and how this fitted in with the manufacture of the time. If it still felt such an innovation holds no place within the Encyclopedia, please could you explain why. Or, if further details are required, please could these equally be pointed out so they might be addressed. Much appreciated. (spencergj Spencergj (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I think some work should be done with the author to give better assistance in future article building. We don't need to drive people away. However as it stands the article should be deleted due to notability inclusion criteria. NJA (t/c) 10:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks NJA but what is the "Notability Inclusion Criteria" and how does it relate to us? Is our World-first innovative technology deemed not worthy of note in an encyclopedia such as this? Would you be able to explain why not? Many thanks for your assistance. (80.229.42.139 (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The general notability guidelines can be found here and the specific guidelines relating to companies can be found here. Kind regards, Nancy ^talk 18:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nancy, that is of great use. Might I also ask how in our case I can nominate independant sources when, due to the timing and short-lifespan of the innovation in question, there is nothing of great note on the internet, indeed THIS resource will in all likelihood by the first document of this type? Thanks once again (spencergj 87.114.80.249 (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

My pleasure. Whilst it is helpful for reliable sources to be available online it is by no means mandatory as that would rule out the vast majority of printed works - contrary to what some people may think, history did not commence on 6 August 1991. having said that, I do hope that your comment above refers to the first online document of this company as if you mean the first ever document then that would pretty much confirm that Dischromatics fails the notability requirements. Nancy ^talk 19:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Touché!!!! No, we have been in extistence for 20 years and have many hard-copy and online references, just not relating to our major innovation in online form. However we have quite a number of physical examples of our work - can I photograph these and upload them somewhere? Would that help at all? (spencergj 87.114.80.249 (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated KM Cycle

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

This article is an unnecessary content fork of Knowledge Management which already discusses a KM cycle. There are sources in Google Books that could be added to substantiate the term "Integrated KM Cycle" but notability is not the issue for this nomination. Ash (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An essay of original research with a single source, likely promotional in intent. And this is also the sort of text, full of glittering generalities and peacock terms, but so abstract and vague to be effectively meaningless, that nobody can reasonably be expected to make sense of: Business Perspective - Knowledge management is a business activity that is reflected in strategy, policy, and practice throughout the organization. / Cognitive Science - Fundamental resource that allows us to function properly. / Process/Technology - A systematic approach to manage and use information that will provide a continuous flow of knowledge that enables efficient and effective decision making. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not worth a separate article and I doubt if there is mergable content. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas Woolf

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

Contested PROD - no reason given. Youth footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has not played at a fully-pro level. Also fails WP:GNG due to no significant media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 13:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. --Jimbo^[online] 13:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, player has never competed at a professional level. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Player isn't notable. I see no reason to keep. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. never played at notable level.--ClubOranje^T 22:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails both WP:ATH and WP:GNG Steve-Ho (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATH because he has not competed at highest amateur level of a sport. Perhaps this article will will pass WP:ATH when he starts at Tufts (if Tufts plays at the Div I level). GoCuse44 (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Player fails ATHLETE having played neither professional nor international football. -- Big Dom 21:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE; academy/trainee level doesn't confer notability. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Collected Writings of H. P. Blavatsky

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

This article is a trivial content fork of Helena Blavatsky. There is no information here that cannot be usefully merged back to the main article and the only unique information here is to list out each year that each volume was originally published. There has been a history of creating such content fork articles for each Theosophy neologism, theory and book which appears to artificially inflate the importance of the topic. Ash (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 13:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article seems to have confused two different protocols for the structure of articles in the WP:BOOK project. It has elements of a standard book article, and also elements of a bibliography article (such as Herman Melville bibliography). This Collected Writings item could probably be considered a multi-item book release so at most it should part of an author bibliography article, but not a bibliography itself. The content of this article should be merged back to Helena Blavatsky, which appears to need a lot of work anyway. As for the "Collected Works" series, that might qualify for a standard book article if the editors can come up with more information and use the WP:BOOK templates and protocols. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Doomsdayer520 rationale. Simonm223 (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is merely a list of the volumes of her collected works, without even any indication of their content. I think it would be rather difficult to make an article out of such a book in any case, unless the collected works were in some way notable asides from the individual works themselves, or if that were the primary publication of an author, as sometimes happens. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cybercartography

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

This article has failed to address the guidance for neologisms. In particular this article has been tagged as such for 15 months with no additional sources to show widespread coverage of this term apparently coined and promoted by Taylor. Searches in Google are mostly circular with no matches in Google News and matches in Google Books appear to point back to Taylor. Ash (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: From my own experience in cartography in the US, this term is in use but not common. I don't think you would encounter it often outside the field. Suggest merging with Cartography. Significant information here could be incorporated under 'technological changes,' or a 'multimedia' section could be added with more information.--Sainge.spin (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus is that the sources provided are insufficient to determine notability. That other articles on similar sites exists is no reason that this one should be kept. That there was canvassing does not affect this close, but I do hope that some new editors stick around because I think this site will be notable in the future. Ged UK 15:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fluther.com

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Not notable. Possibly spamming/promotional material. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The site is a Silicon Valley start-up, got 600-grand from venture capitalists, and was articled on the New York Times, Business Pundit, and other news sources. (You'll see them on the External Links.) --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 12:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've just read the article and sources. It's a non notable start up company. I certainly like the idea of the website and may join, but blogs, magazine articles and venture capital don't offer notability. I wish them luck but most venture capital companies fail. They can come back if they actually succeed. Szzuk (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No showing that this meets the website notability guideline, and indeed, no real showing of sub-minimal importance. Receiving financing does not make a business or online business notable. The NYT coverage seems to be a general article on this type of web collaboration. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article does in fact meet the criteria for notability:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The article provides links to multiple newspaper, magazine, and (non-spammy, not-for-advertising) blog articles. While there are only a handful of these articles, they meet the multiple and the non-trivial guidelines.

2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]

While the website has not yet won an award of its nature, it has been nominated more than once. This suggests that it is similar in quality to the websites that have won these awards and in keeping with its nature as a start-up, is very likely to win a notable award as the site continues to grow.

I understand the concern about non-notability. This is certainly not a highly-notable or even moderately-notable website. But it does meet the specified criteria for notability and therefore should be kept. 169.234.124.26 (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC) — 169.234.124.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Item #1-I am not sure they are non-trivial in nature. Item #2-You have provided the reason for not including the article in Wikipedia - it has not won an award. Unfortunately nominations are not mentioned as part of the criteria. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and cannot rely on anticipated events. ttonyb (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia defines "trivial" as follows: "Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores." None of the sources in the Fluther article meet any of these criteria. You may consider them "trivial" in a colloquial sense, but they unambiguously meet the criteria for "non-trivial" as defined by Wikipedia. 169.234.5.41 (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for nominations, Wikipedia does state "Being nominated for such an award in multiple years may also be considered an indicator of notability." So clearly the guidelines place some emphasis on multiple nominations, even though you are correct that this does not technically meet the criterion. (It seems to me that if multiple nominations for the same award count, then multiple nominations for different awards really should count too, but I guess that's another argument.)

Keep - Exhibit A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluther.com#See_also— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joefedewa (talk • contribs) — Joefedewa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment – Just because other stuff exists does not mean this should also. See WP:WAX. Each article needs to stand on its own. ttonyb (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not really seeing a lot of non-trivial coverage in non-trivial works RS sources. Looking at the current refs, you essentially get the following breakdown:
- Gajeebo - blog, not RS
- AppScout - blog, not RS
- NY Times article - trivial mention of Fluther.com, talks about men behind it and business practices mostly, the word Fluther appears in body once.
- Brown Alumni magazine - only arguable RS that touches on Fluther.com content in any great detail
- CNET - trivial mention - award nomination
- SXSW.com - trivial mention - award nomination
- Bizjournals.com - trivial mention - pretty much only mentions financial backing and backers
- Techcrunch.com - blog, not RS
- Digital.venturebeat.com - blog, not RS

Four blogs (not reliable sources per WP:RS), 2 trivial award mentions, 1 trivial financial backing mention, one very small, passing reference in the NY Times article on telecommunications, computing, and business practices, and a small writeup in an article that is barely an RS. Moogwrench (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Agree. The IP author is quoting WP guidelines without understanding them. They're trivial sources. Szzuk (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hold on now. I may not be a seasoned editor, but I do think I understand the guidelines. There is a difference between a trivial source (e.g., a listing in a directory) and a trivial mention in a notable source (e.g., passing mention in the NYT). Can you link me to the definition of a trivial vs. non-trivial mention, since we have already covered trivial vs. non-trivial sources? 169.234.5.41 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, at the risk of splitting hairs: the guidelines requires "multiple" sources. Does this mean two non-trivial mentions in non-trivial sources is sufficient to warrant inclusion?169.234.5.41 (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When I originally CSDed this article, there was absolutely no indication of notability. Since that time, an attempt has been made to address that, which was sufficient enough for me to voluntarily remove the CSD tag. However, I am still not convinced the article meets notability guidelines. User:Moogwrench hit the nail on the head: everything being referenced is either not a reliable sources or is not significant coverage. As much as I appreciate the attempts to address the issues, notability cannot be generated. It's either a notable subject or it's not, and no amount of twisting blog posts and trivial sources together can compensate for that. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that (1) it is only marginally notable, making it a borderline case and (2) none of the creators really "get" wikipedia editing. It didn't even occur to me that blogs don't count until the dude up there brought up the issue of reliable sources. I really hope you guys will bear with us while we figure it out, though. There's a lot to learn and it would be really frustrating and disappointing to have all this work deleted before we figure out how to communicate the content in a way that adheres to the guidelines. 169.234.5.41 (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I totally understand that it can be difficult for newer editors to grasp everything, and, moreover, get everything right. Even some of the best editors screw up these guidelines. But, on the other side, that's also why this process exists - to manage it. I can't justify keeping the article in its current state, however you may consider creating an account so that you can userfy the page, where it will be less likely to be deleted, pull it up to standards (under the assumption that it can in fact meet notability guidelines), and then move it into mainspace when it will meet the requirements. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Due to the fact that several editors have been trying to correct the issues, perhaps the article incubator is a better option than userfication, should it be taken up. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 20:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can one of the established editors explain and or highlight how the description/notability of this site differs significantly from other social networking sites like Answerbag? To me, the organization and links are remarkably similar. Mudfud (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC) --— Mudfud (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Unfortunately, the existence of another article is not relevant to this article – each article must stand on its one merits. It could very well be that the other article should be deleted as well. See WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING for more information. ttonyb (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps Askville, Answerbag, and all other sites like this should have their pages taken down. Until they are, there's a precedent. Medusa1122 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC) — Medusa1122 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – There is no precedent, as I stated, all articles must stand on their own merits. I suggest you reread the pages I noted above. ttonyb (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I clearly said, if this is not notable then those are not as well. So delete them. Start with Askville and Answerbag and go from there. Medusa1122 (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I closed both AFDs as speedy keep per all the sources, and as a bad faith nom. Please do not try to make a point on wikipedia. Thank you. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable website, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Note: I put a db tag on this page last night. Woogee (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can you please comment on my points to Shirik above about notability? Specifically that it is notable, but only marginally so and technically meets the criteria. I agree that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, but I think I have provided a valid argument that has not yet been addressed. 169.234.5.41 (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – That is not an appropriate discussion for this venue. Please take this to 169.234.5.41 talk page. This is a discussion of Fluther.com's proposed deletion, not how it compares to other articles. Thanks... ttonyb (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tony, I am discussing fluther.com's proposed deletion and I made no reference to other articles. I believe it is fair, in a discussion, for me to respond to the points that are being raised, especially when the same one is being raised repeatedly. Woogee said it should be deleted because it's non-notable. I disagree, and I have already explained why in my comments to Shirik. These points have not yet been addressed by any of the users voting for deletion. I am asking Woogee (or anyone else who is willing) to address my response to the claim of non-notability that I consider erroneous. 169.234.5.41 (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – My apologies, I thought you were asking for clarification with regards to other articles and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ttonyb (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification My comment earlier proposing WP:INCUBATOR was not to indicate that it "technically meets notability criteria", it was merely a proposed avenue through which to work on this article, under the assumption that the various editors here are in fact correct that the subject does in fact meet notability guidelines but the article as-of-yet hasn't met those guidelines. My proposal for incubation should not be taken as foresight that the subject would meet notability guidelines, just that if the editors reasonably believe it can meet notability guidelines, then it could be taken out of mainspace while these (COI, but, in my opinion, valid) concerns are addressed. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 00:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this. I was hoping that someone would be willing to comment on my response to the non-notability claims rather than continuing to reiterate that it doesn't meet criteria while disregarding my response to claims. 169.234.124.26 (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response – OK, I hope that you don't feel that you are being ignored, merely that some might feel the point has already been made. Above, you said "Can you link me to the definition of a trivial vs. non-trivial mention, since we have already covered trivial vs. non-trivial sources?" Hopefully my response covers it a bit better:

First, trivial source. WP:WEB states that a non-trivial source "includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. The blogs must be discarded as essentially trivial, non-reliable sources, since per WP:V#SELF, self-published sources like blogs are not reliable sources.
Second, trivial coverage/mention. WP:WEB states that trivial coverage includes sources which give only "a brief summary of the nature of the content". This encompasses the awards and financial backing mentions in CNET, SXSW.com, and Bizjournals.com, as well as the NY Times article which only tangentially mentions Fluther once. Remember, under Wikipedia:N#General_notability_guideline, under the heading Significant coverage, sources must "address the subject directly in detail, ... [S]ignificant coverage is more than a trivial mention". A couple of small paragraphs without much detail is a trivial mention.
Also, keep in mind this heading (Reliable) under that same section. It states, in part, "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." The fact that reliable secondary sources are so scarce is telling a lot of people that this is not notable.

This article has some sources which are trivial, and then some non-trivial sources which treat the subject with trivial mentions. The only arguable non-trivial source with a non-trivial mention would be the Brown Alumni magazine. Moogwrench (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As stated, I am not, nor do I want you to think that I am, ignoring you. I just want it clearly understood that while I am a proponent of article incubation should that desired by the content editors, that does not mean that I believe it is notable at that time; that remains to be proven and really can only be proven by the creators (and future editors) of the article. Unfortunately, until such time that it is proven that the subject is notable, the article is not fit for mainspace. User:Moogwrench has done a good job of stating why the claims you are making are not satisfying these criteria. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If anyone feels that other articles are about sites with no more notability than this one, would they please nominate them in the way this one has been. Peridon (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems like this is turning into a circular debate for no reason. Wikipedia, you guys act like Fluther is some homemade site some kid made. It's an established successful website with notable supporters and mentions. The Fluther people keep saying that other sites similar to Fluther have articles so they should too. While this is not reason enough, I do see their point. It seems pretty hypocritical and unfair to allow other less successful websites have articles but not Fluther. This is not the only reason why Fluther should have a page, but it is a good point. Overall I think both sides are over thinking this. I agree that Fluther deserves an article because encyclopedias are where people go to learn about things and I think Fluther deserves to be learned about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.204.72.77 (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC) — 74.204.72.77 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – Unfortunetely, "...[having an article] because encyclopedias are where people go to learn about things...," is not a valid reason to have one. If this were the case, then everyone's dog or personal mantra would have an entry. ttonyb (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you seriously comparing Fluther to someone's dog? This process has really made me question the integrity of Wikipedia. You guys are being incredibly strict for no reason. Fluther having an article is not going to destroy your website. Why not go spend some time on articles that actually deserve deletion and leave us alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joefedewa (talk • contribs) 18:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I suggest you reread the comment, there was no comparison between the two. Only a statement that alluded to the fact that without standards Wikipedia would contain anything and everything and everyone's dog or personal mantra would have an entry. In spite of your comment, this is not personal. No one is attacking you or "you guys". This is solely an attempt to determine if the article meets the notability criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia. Sheesh... ttonyb (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All of the regular WP editors think this article should be deleted and only SPA accounts, presumably from Fluther itself, want the article to remain. No new issues which would save the page have come to light, so it will almost certainly get deleted. Where can I find the page on someones dog? ;-) Szzuk (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous dogs. Woogee (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A dog named Tiger Woods. Life is full of hidden amusement. Szzuk (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth, Regular WP Editors, I see your points but also agree with the other SPA (what does that mean, anyway?) editors that you are enforcing the rules too aggressively. It feels like all of our attempts to bring the page up to par are futile because you have already decided that the page is going to get deleted and are not interested in improving it. As each issue comes up I have been trying to become acquainted with the rules so I can resolve it but there is an awful lot to learn and at this point it doesn't seem worth it.

Regardless of what happens with this page, I hope you guys will step back and examine whether or not you've gotten a little trigger-happy with the delete key. The high standards you enforce are what make wikipedia so great, and I am definitely not encouraging you to compromise those, but it's possible to go too far. I believe I can speak for the guys who started this page, and they are definitely not spammers or advertisers. This page was built and edited in good faith by people who value wikipedia's high standards, and I don't think the Regular WP Editors have treated it that way.173.51.29.215 (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC) [Oops -- I am 169.234.124.26, editing from another location.][reply]

I don't doubt their good faith. I do doubt their judgment and understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. The content of the article is not the issue; its subject's notability is. The inability on the part of anyone to come up with reliable, detailed, mainstream sources on the subject (which would then establish its notability) shows that the decision must be Delete. Moogwrench (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the accusations of spamming -- I understand the concern about notability. Like I said before, I think it meets criteria, but only barely. I don't think we can overwhelmingly demonstrate notability, and given the momentum of the delete crowd it doesn't seem worth it to keep trying to improve the page since it's probably going to get deleted no matter what we do at this point.173.51.29.215 (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added a link for the canvassing. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the catch. I suspected something like this earlier, which is why I added {{not a ballot}} some time ago. I want to, again, remind everyone that this is not a vote, this is a discussion and that the fact that you have a username or are anonymous has no impact on the validity of your arguments. So long as you make a sensible, policy-based, well-thought-out comment in this discussion, it will be given its due consideration. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB, and the attempt at outside canvassing is downright pitiful. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User "canvassing" is a newbie who has no business doing so, nor participating in the article creation for this site, FYI. No one there takes him seriously. Medusa1122 (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Click on the Google news link up top. See all the results? Cnet reviews it. That's notable. Dream Focus 23:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, a blogger at CNET's WebWare blog reviewed it and offered some of his personal perspectives. Not the same thing. If you look at the other sources they are are trivial mentions (i.e. subject is mentioned only briefly in the article, not in detail as is required by WP:WEB). Moogwrench (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually found three mentions of it on CNET, but am having trouble distinguishing between CNET-based blogs and a CNET news article that counts as RS... maybe some regular editors could have a look?173.51.29.215 (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[36] mentions it in a webware news article, it having plenty of coverage and praise. Googling for fluther.com on site:cnet.com shows 48 results, and searching for just fluther gives 147. That one link though is sufficient enough. Dream Focus 02:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why you see "praise" is because it is opinion. It is a blog (look down at the bottom of the posting). See WP:RS. Even if it were an RS, "one link" isn't enough. Multiple RSs are required to establish notability for web content, per WP:WEB#Criteria. Moogwrench (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Canvassing is not good practice, but doesn't affect the article itself. I have slight concerns that the wording is vaguely promotional, but it's hard to avoid totally and would get ironed out by independent editors fairly soon. There's just about enough referencing for me. I am a regular Wikipedia editor with no connection to Fluther (but I do, not as Peridon, to another place where answers are sought). As to the objecters to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I would remind visitors that this is our field and our ball, and therefore our rules. Peridon (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that the NPOV issues can be addressed in due time; they are not significant enough to warrant deletion right now. However, the issue of notability still remains, and I haven't seen any significant evidence presented that suggests that guidelines are met, as I mentioned above. The only sources that have been mentioned are either not significant or not reliable. This is a severe issue which needs to be addressed before the article can be determined fit for inclusion. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep IT seems to haver enough coverage in reliable sources in GNews and the web in general. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones, precisely? Moogwrench (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At the heart of this debate are the reliability of sources. None of the previous editors have found anything. If you have...provide it. Szzuk (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)*[reply]

Moogwrench points out that the Brown alumni magazine (http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/content/view/2075/40/) probably does meet criteria. I believe at least one of the CNET mentions counts, but as I mentioned above I am having trouble distinguishing between the CNET blogs and news sources and hoped a seasoned editor would be willing to help out. Here is a list of CNET mentions:

I said the Brown alumni source was arguable. It has an editorial board but it is not exactly a major publication. I don't know what other people think. Seriously folks, if you can't come up with at least one major reliable news source that treats the subject in detail, do you honestly think it's notable enough for an entire encylopedia article? If/when it becomes notable enough we can write an article on it. What's the rush? Moogwrench (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response "Josh Lowensohn writes for Webware.com, CNET's blog about Web applications and services. E-mail Josh, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/Josh." This is your first one, and I interpret it as meaning he is an official writer not a casual commenter. No 2: "Jason Parker writes software reviews and features for Windows, Mac, and iPhone. If he learned to dance, it would make him a fabled "quadruple threat," but we can't get him to do it." This also looks somewhat as if he has an official status, but I'm less sure. No 3: Andrew Mager looks reasonably official, unlike the commenters at the end of his article. No 4: Lowensohn again, and I've found he is (an) Assistant Editor at Webware.com. Got the hang of this now. No 2 Jason Parker is an official CNET writer, and rated as Senior associate editor. No 3 now doesn't look so official, as I can't find a profile for him. 1, 2 and 4 are the ones that appear official. Peridon (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But are "official writers" necessarily RS? 169.234.3.145 (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)— 169.234.3.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I'd say as RS as a writer in any newspaper or magazine. A lot of articles are sent in to magazines, and newspapers have 'correspondents' who are paid on a piecework basis - and they count as RS, don't they? These writers at CNET appear to me to be staff writers, rather than just posters of comments. Open to correction by a CNET expert. Peridon (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that the key is editorial oversight of CNET, not whether they are an "official writer" or not. If CNET doesn't exercise editorial control over their content, they are essentially self-published, even if the site is sponsored by CNET. Read WP:RS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 -- it says that a newspaper's interactive column (which is sometimes call a "blog" by the newspaper) must still be "subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Be aware that per these comments from regular CNET blogger Josh Wolf, that CNET does not exercise editorial control over copy or headlines for the blog content of its news site, thus they are not usable per WP:RS. Moogwrench (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But the lack of editorial oversight wrt a single blogger does not indicate to me that none of the blog-style writing on CNET has editorial oversight. Specifically, the WebWare blog linked above seems to be written by a team of writers and editors, suggesting to me that at the very least they monitor each others' work. Collaboration by a team of writers and editors fits my definition of editorial oversight... what do you think? 128.200.52.17 (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC) — 128.200.52.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment – A team of writers does not imply anything other than a common focus. Editorial oversight provides independent review of the content. Something that is difficult when one is an author. ttonyb (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Put simply blogs are almost never permitted sources. And this isn't an almost never scenario. Szzuk (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N as it hasn't recieved significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Also note I saw this debate being canvassed at another site besides the one mentioned at the top of the page. Them From Space 22:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ged UK 15:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Johnson

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

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines for musicians; author also appears to have a WP:COI (read Update below). OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 10:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at least in its current form. The article is just a promo piece right now, of the type that belongs in a social networking site and not in an encyclopedia. Her associations with famous musicians might lead to notability if there is coverage in reliable sources, but most of what I'm finding are self-built promotional and networking pages. See criterion #1 of WP:BAND including footnotes 1 and 3. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 20:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update - The article was changed from the original form. Any involved parties may want to view the live article, or historical versions of the article while taking part in this discussion. Also, the author of the article (User: Fbjohnson) appears to have a WP:COI, as their initial edit was a (wrongly formatted) redirect from the Back to Basics Tour to the self-created Belle Johnson article [37]. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kyokushin-Kan Karate Pakistan

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

Non-notable. Defender of torch (talk) 10:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 10:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. The article contents are also a direct copy/paste from [38]. --TreyGeek (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the same man created article Kyokushin-Kan Karate Pakistan and the external site, then it may not be copyvio (but it may be db-spam). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WPMA/N. Janggeom (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Slam (Gaelic Games)

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

As per WP:OR. This term seems to have been invented recently just for Kilkenny's wins. Gnevin (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It needs citations, and presumably there is an Irish translation out there (An Slamma Mor?).Red Hurley (talk) 09:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While the term has been used in the Irish national press from time to time (e.g. here and here), there seems to be no official recognition of the term anywhere, and it seems to mean different things in different circumstances as far as I can tell. Teester (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Goldberg

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

I cannot find any significant coverage that would indicate the subject would pass Wikipedia:PEOPLE. It is also problematic that the whole article was written by Colin Goldberg himself. Haakon (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Young artist who doesn't meet notability criteria (yet). Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NN artist. A bit premature for an article.--Hu12 (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem encyclopedic yet...Modernist (talk) 23:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this artist. Joe Chill (talk) 17:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious self-promotion by a blocked user. --Webley455 (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 13 Google news hits, but few, if any, are of this person. Might be notable some day, but not yet. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proworkflow

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

Can not find significant third-party coverage of this product, and none are given. Haakon (talk) 09:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More of the "project management" morass; these are all programs that relate to the supervision of computer programmers, apparently. Google News finds only PR material and release announcements. No showing of technical or historical importance, either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per WP:N - non notable, no trusted 3rd party coverage, their only reference is a self reference from their own website. --DustyRain (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Only deletion argument seems to be poorly conceived essay. LotLE×talk 20:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm using WP:N. The essay is total shit. Joe Chill (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and the proposed software notability guideline as well. Take your pick. JBsupreme (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources to look at! Miami33139 (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to satisfy any notability guidelines as there doesn't appear to be significant third party coverage by reliable sources. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Doesn't meet POLITICIAN, nor the GNG, as there is a lack of independent, reliable sources. As stated in POLITICIAN, being a candidate does not confer automatic notability without the RS to back it up. Ged UK 15:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Smith (politician)

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

Lack of independent reliable sources. Not notable. Fails WP:POLITICIAN and BIO Kittybrewster ☎ 08:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep as creator: he actually meets WP:POLITICIAN since he is a former city council member of Bristol City Council, and WP:POLITICIAN states that; "Generally speaking [...] members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city [are likely to meet this criterion]." Although he's a former member, he is still notable since notability is not temporary. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Brighton is not a "major metropolitan city". As such, the paragraph in question requires significant coverage of the subject in multiple reliable sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's, uh, Bristol City Council. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 10:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - *facepalm* I blame the weather. And the lack of caffeine. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN to give the full quote that Spitfire omitted to give above: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city." Smith hasn't received any significant press coverage. Not only that but the only refs in the article are websites from his own party in other words there are no reliable secondary sources at all, let alone the type of coverage that would qualify him for an article. Valenciano (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Alboran's comment below regarding press coverage. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - members of even large British local authorities rarely receive significant press coverage; the statement that they are likely to in WP:POLITICIAN is more relevant to U.S. politics. The key point in WP:POLITICIAN is that they must have received significant press coverage. If Smith is elected to Parliament, then he will be notable. Warofdreams talk 13:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a former member of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city, he's running for election to parliament representing that city and stands a good chance of winning. He is the recipient of local press coverage (see for example these searches [39][40]), was likely the recipient of further press coverage that we don't have easy online access to when he was a councillor (the whole of the 1990s), and he will no doubt be the recipient of further and more significant press coverage in the run up to the election, regardless of whether he is eventually elected. Alboran (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good chance of winning? Well we're not a crystal ball but even if we were, people who are actually putting money on the result rate Labour's chances very poorly Valenciano (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol is not major. If he is elected, the article should be created; he won't be. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The UK's eighth most populous city, and England's sixth, not major? Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to not meeting WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN. Council leaders are deemed notable, simply being a member would need more than.... simply being a member. One of a great many PPC articles desperately and wrongly relying on Cllr status to justify their campaign page (see Heidi Alexander, Kay Barnard, Mark Formosa, etc)--Saalstin (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, the guidlines mentions nothing about distinction between council leaders and council members, apart from, that is, to say that coucil members are notable. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I was referring to community consensus as I've seen it in POLITICIAN debates. What the guideline actually says is that members of a metropolitan council might be notable, and Bristol does not meet even the most generous description of that. He's really rather more 'notable' for his PPC candidacy, which is, in our terms, distinctly non-notable. --Saalstin (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, can you provide links as to where you have seen this consensus formed? You keep on saying that the page should be deleted as he's a PPC candidate, although you are right that being a PPC candidate does not make one notable, nor does being a PPC candidate immediately make one non-notable, as you seem to imply above (i.e. "He's really rather more 'notable' for his PPC candidacy, which is, in our terms, distinctly non-notable."). As to the status of Bristol as a major metropolitan city, please see my comment above to Alboran/Kittybrewster, and bear in mind that a Metropolis is different (I believe?) to a major metropolitan city, which is a major city located in a Metropolitan area. Even if you argued that Bristol had to be a Metropolis, it probably still passes. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Spitfire, the guidelines in WP:POLITICIAN don't say that council members are automatically notable it says "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. A couple of routine mentions in the local press - none of which seem to be in depth - don't cut the mustard. Valenciano (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:POLITICIAN is a bit vague on "major local political figures", but that doesn't matter - the criterion is "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Until you can find significant press coverage (I couldn't), it doesn't matter how low you set the bar for "major local political figures" - the second part of the notability criterion hasn't been met. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A few entries below this one on today's page is a proposed Deletion of Tom Walsh (Wyoming politician), which was "speedily withdrawn" because "a state legislator is always notable". Wyoming has a population of 550k and 90 legislators. Bristol has a population of 440k and 70 legislators. I tend to think both are borderline cases and being a major party candidate in the forthcoming general election swings the balance in favour of keep. --Sussexonian (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
UK councils, however, have far less power than a US state does. WP:POLITICIAN allows for members of a national, provincial or state legislature. If the UK, I would talk that to mean the Commons and Lords, the parliaments/assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Greater London Assembly, and the regional assemblies / English Parliament is that ever happens. I would certainly not apply it to local councils unless their power was beefed up a lot. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until election -- I think that we have to put up with having campaign biographies of PPCs in WP, with a view to deleting them wholesale after the next election. This was a safe Tory seat, but the figures at the last election were 21k/15k/14k, making this potentially a three-way marginal. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At best, that is an argument for Article incubation. The problem is that he does not meet the minimum criteria (and never did). Kittybrewster ☎ 23:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bristol West (UK Parliament constituency). Members of a nation's legislature are inherently notable, candidates for legislature generally are not notable enough for their own article, and municipal legislators are not either, no matter what city we're talking about. Mandsford (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable. No reliable sources. Won't win the seat he's contesting. Szzuk (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nomination withdrawn. I had missed the previous AfD and I didn't do my homework on this one. (non-admin closure) Shadowjams (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Itsmy

AfDs for this article:

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

A google search reveals the site itself and then nothing else. Google news has nothing better on the front page. For something so obvious, around for 4 years, I'd assume more obvious sources. I see none. Shadowjams (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link Commander

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

I see a lot of download listings, but no news, or other indications of notability. Has two references within that you should review, but I don't think are sufficiently RS to indicate notability. Shadowjams (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The second reference is good, but one source isn't enough and I can't find anymore. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have to good sources. LotLE×talk 20:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The second reference, a whole three paragraphs in a round-up review, is not substantial. The first reference is just a download directory. Miami33139 (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DXGM (FourCC)

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

Failure to comply with Wikipedia notability guideline due to lack of significant coverage, as defined by the guideline. Fleet Command (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Fleet Command (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, for three reasons. First, it's non-notable—DXGM is just a four-character code, and FourCCs do not have their own Wikipedia articles. Because there is nothing to write about four characters. It is probably the only FourCC having its own article (by mistake, since the original author confused FourCCs with codecs). Second, DXGM is a very exotic, obscure FourCC (so if there is a FourCC deserving its own article, it is not DXGM). Third, the article is unverifiable, no reliable sources can be found.—J. M. (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WAX but WP:N → WP:RS!Fleet Command (talk) 13:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point was not that DXGM should not have its own article because other FourCCs don't have it either—what I meant was that we don't have separate articles for other FourCCs because having a separate article on FourCC is nonsense (as FourCC is nothing else than just four characters). That's why FourCCs do not deserve their own Wikipedia articles.—J. M. (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A separate article for this seems unwarranted, but a table of some FourCCs like this may be suitable for inclusion in the FourCC article (DXGM is listed there). It appears [41] [42] [43] it's just a MPEG-4 Part 2 profile. Pcap ping 14:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, there could be a FourCC table or article. As for DXGM—yes, it is probably one of many MPEG-4 Part 2 FourCCs (various companies like to use their own FourCC for standard MPEG-4 ASP video, for example digital camera manufacturers—it is always one and the same format, but for some reason, they do not want it to be marked as such, so that it does not work with "normal" players). But it is very difficult, if not impossible, to find any acceptable information on the DXGM FourCC—Wikipedia requires more reliable sources than discussion forums or wikis.—J. M. (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the people that commented there were the VLC Player developers, and the source code confirms what they said. But this is a minor issue to be discussed somewhere else. The current article is pretty much a WP:NOTHOWTO violation, and there's little salvageable material in it: even lonely the ref is useless. Pcap ping 18:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although I declined a proposed deletion, because I thought the article was too controversial for such a deletion due to its history, I agree that it should be deleted. What I'm particularly concerned about is at the opening of the article where it says that this is an "undocumented" codec. This implies that there is no way to verify the accuracy of the information, and considering the lack of sources I think that's a real problem. -- Atama頭 18:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colletto Fava

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

The subject of this article is a hill in Italy. Apparently, its main claim to notability is a work of art – a large, pink stuffed rabbit – that was placed on top of the hill in 2005. Sources for this article exist, but honestly I see this mainly as a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. The placement of this artwork was an event that has not received ~~coverage of a long duration or~~ what I would term in-depth coverage, so I don't feel it meets WP:EVENT. It certainly hasn't had a lasting lasting effect or an impact that would prove notability. WikiNews published an article on this back in 2005, and that was the proper place for this subject. It doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have no view on whether the pink rabbit is notable but I believe that the hill is notable: simply by virtue of being a reasonably (and sufficiently) significant geographical feature. Ian Spackman (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The bunny aside, in looking at a terrain map, this doesn't appear to be a notable geographic feature in any way. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just checked Google, and got 167,000 hits, hundreds of them with images. Colletto Fava is hard to categorize, but is clearly notable in my opinion. Tim Ross (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with Tim Ross. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 14:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The hill is a notable place so the article hasn't to be deleted, I don't know if the work of the Gelitin is famous in that case the article can be modified but not deleted.User:Lucifero4

Comment I find it interesting that so many editors are saying that this location is inherently notable. What criteria can we apply to decide if a hill is notable? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Google News search linked above finds coverage of the floppy bunny from 2005, 2008 and 2009, and the Google Books search from 2006 and 2007. How is this not coverage of a long duration? Phil Bridger (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You have a point there. I'll strike that from my nomination. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to have some notability, both for geographical and the art event. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hold on a sec. Let's say that yes, this geographical location is inherently notable. Now read over this article. It's all about the rabbit artwork – hardly anything about the actual hill. Isn't that undue weight? (And if not, shouldn't this be moved to Hase (sculpture)?) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine House of Representatives elections in the Zamboanga Peninsula, 2010 - no prejudice towards a second nomination with all of such articles bundled together. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine House of Representatives elections in Caraga, 2010

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

Article just a blank grid. Cannot be useful for months, and perhaps never. Rasputin72 (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Mkativerata (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's for this year, I don't know when their elections are, but I think this is pretty soon to be useable. I would hope the OP wouldn't create many more of these ahead of time... in that case I'd be on board with deleting them. But this one's coming up soon, and seems within bounds. Shadowjams (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is already Philippine House of Representatives elections, 2010, and we don't need election pages for every region of the Philippines. Armbrust (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a 'Caraga' page or possibly a '2010 Philippines election results' page. Individual pages would just amount to mere statistics, and Wikipedia is not a mere collection of statistics. JulieSpaulding (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request. This discussion is identical to the one being held at yesterday's page here. Can I propose the result of this one will inevitably the same as that one? Sussexonian (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why not... JulieSpaulding (talk) 12:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I'm surprised that it's a blank table, given that the elections are set for May 10. Perhaps Philippine election laws keep a person from registering as a candidate until a short time before the ballots have to be printed, otherwise, this article isn't being worked on. Mandsford (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Hendroff

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

tagged for over 6 months. doesn't seem notable. article is nothing but a lsit of equiptment the musician uses. Alan - talk 04:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 05:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's a church guitarist. I'm as notable as he is, as is most of the planet. Szzuk (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His church releases platinum-selling albums, one of which topped the Australian charts, and for which he was the lead guitarist. Holly25 (talk) 09:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article could probably have been prodded away. Szzuk (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1 gnews hit [44] LibStar (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Walsh (Wyoming politician)

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

Mayor of Casper, Wyoming is not a notorious enough position to merit an article. WP:N and all that. Rasputin72 (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Withdraw nomination. Sorry about that. Rasputin72 (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, all state legislators qualify for Wikipedia, and this one has an extensive record.Billy Hathorn (talk) 04:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. A member of a state legislature is inherently notable. - Eastmain (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. _{- Eastmain (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. _{- Eastmain (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:POLITICIAN: certainly as a state legislation; probably as mayor of a town of 50,000 as well. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Mkativerata and above. Also news coverage: here (Salvation Army bestows national award on 9/20/09), here passing is announced, and here (one of several news stories about his work on a legislative issue). This is his official Wyoming state legislature page. Moogwrench (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep State legislators are notable enough for inclusion under WP:POLITICIAN criterion #1. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2014 in spaceflight

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

One of those "in the future" articles with no useful content. See also 2013 in spaceflight. Rasputin72 (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Another user and I were the two prods. Too far ahead for what is really a retrospective article. We had been involved in discussions with the original creator and I think he/she has turned their interests towards some more time-appropriate articles. Shadowjams (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That user just created the "2013 in spaceflight" article about 5 minutes ago. Rasputin72 (talk) 04:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. There goes my "we had it figured out" theory. Shadowjams (talk) 04:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the general practice of the Timeline of Spaceflight wikiproject is for only the upcoming two years' of articles to exist due to sourcing issues as well as sheer numbers of confirmed missions available. These pages are not really worthwhile with only one to five launches listed. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article appears to be too speculative. Even according to the single mission mentioned in this page, the mission is in the planning stages and may change a lot. Who knows if it will really happen. So to declare it as a 2014 space flight is speculative. Also, as this article stands it is duplication because the only mission mentioned, BepiColombo, already has its own page on Wikipedia. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete, whilst this is too far ahead to be useful, a previous AFD on a similar article found that lists of future spaceflights in general are acceptable. WP:TLS generally keeps articles for a maximum of two years ahead of the current one, which takes us up to 2012. Therefore I would support deletion on the condition that it may be recreated on or after 1 January 2012 without the need for a formal deletion review (the current content of this article is likely to be completely out of date by then, and the format is not consistent with other articles in this series, so starting from scratch would be easier than restoring the deleted content. --G W… 09:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree its too far ahead and there are no really reliable sources for that far ahead. I agree with the articles re-creation when it is the right time, and for to be formatted to be the same as all the others.--NavyBlue84 14:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 15:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, also space missions aren't too well-known for sticking with their schedules. Them From Space 04:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. 2014 is too far ahead at this current time to really accurately cover potential spaceflight events. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2013 in spaceflight

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

A page guessing about future events is not helpful. What if I started an article on Album releases by the Beastie Boys 2014? Rasputin72 (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, 2013 in spaceflight is sure to happen, unlike a Beastie Boys album in 2014. Unless 2012 happens. –Howard the Duck 04:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against re-creation next year. The general practice of the Timeline of spaceflight wikiproject which takes care of these type of pages is to only have the upcoming two years, eg 2011 and 2012 at present due to the availability of sources, and the fact that the number of confirmed launches is not enough to warrant being listed. Right now there is only two missions listed here and the formatting is not only incorrect, the sourcing is not definite as well. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be speculative WP:Crystal. Also it appears that someone messed up the page so as to be intelligible. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional delete, whilst this is too far ahead to be useful, a previous AFD on a similar article found that lists of future spaceflights in general are acceptable. WP:TLS generally keeps articles for a maximum of two years ahead of the current one, which takes us up to 2012. Therefore I would support deletion on the condition that it may be recreated on or after 1 January 2011 without the need for a formal deletion review (the current content of this article is likely to be completely out of date by then, and the format is not consistent with other articles in this series, so starting from scratch would be easier than restoring the deleted content. --G W… 09:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source better. Space projects have up to a decade of planning and building, and can have a decade of flight time to reach the target. The article needs to be sourced better, and reverted to an earlier version. I think the one mission can be handled by inclusion on the 2013 page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, there is no earlier version with the proper formatting per WP:TLS. This is all there is, a brand new article. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, also space missions aren't too well-known for sticking with their schedules. Them From Space 04:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine House of Representatives elections in the Zamboanga Peninsula, 2010 - no prejudice towards a second nomination with all of such articles bundled together. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine House of Representatives elections in the Ilocos Region, 2010

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

Mere placeholder article. Has no information and information about the elections can be written in the general 2010 Philippine election article. Rasputin72 (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is already Philippine House of Representatives elections, 2010, and we don't need election pages for every region of the Philippines. Armbrust (talk) 12:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Armbrust's (now struck out) argument. I'd like to add a comment of my own: basically, until May, this article will just be full of empty tables. We don't need that. JulieSpaulding (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article has been expanded. This argument should be moot by now. –Howard the Duck 17:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (Non-admin closure) —LedgendGamer 08:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Onyxtel

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

Spam page for a "computer solutions" company. Not blatant advertising, but certainly not notable: no Gnews, 142 unique Ghits, with as far as I can tell absolutely no claim to pass WP:CORP. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, pretty clear spam entry, I've re-added the db-spam tag removed by the creator. Hairhorn (talk) 05:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Used machine tools

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

A non-notable topic; does the existence of a catalog really mean this topic is notable? At the very least this article should be merged into machine tools. Wizard191 (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Admittedly, we have Used car and Used book. Used car makes sense; Used book is a pretty iffy article; this one seems to have no justification. Used machine tools aren't particularly different from new machine tools, and we certainly don't need "Used X" for every product "X." I think we can accept that most products will have a used market without having to believe that all such are notable, and this one is not. By the way, the article mentions trade fairs for used machines, but this article is supposed to be about machine tools. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Agree with User:Glenfarclas. Patent nonsense unworthy of inclusion in encyclopedia. Annette46 (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Butterfly Effect (Diana Yukawa album)

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

Reads like an ad, non-notable, significant portions lifted from press release, arguably a copyright violation. —METS501 (talk) 02:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 05:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to deal with copyvio then redirect to the artist unless signficant independent coverage can be found (I didn't see any with a google search). Polarpanda (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Copyvio issues and notability issues. Annette46 (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. NJA (t/c) 10:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kool FM

AfDs for this article:

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

non-notable pirate radio station; previous AFD result was delete, has been recreated despite that Rapido (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kool as common branding for oldies stations in the United States; this can be deleted as unsourced and non-notable. Nate • (chatter) 06:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the thousands of listeners it attracts would consider it "non-notable". Seanallen (talk) 01:48, 08 January 2010 (GMT)

Got any ratings numbers to prove "thousands" listen to it? The very nature of a pirate station precludes using any kind of numbers to show any kind of reach, because there will never be a case where a ratings service offers their services to a pirate station. Nate • (chatter) 06:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So even though it is one of the longest running pirate stations in London, perhaps even the world (over 18 years old), it doesn't deserve to have an article where people can learn a bit about it? Like you said, pirate stations by their very nature have no official figures; this should not be held against it. As for it being "unsourced", any of the information contained in the article can be found out by listening to the station. Please let me know what will make this a better article and I will make changes to comply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanallen (talk • contribs) 10:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just because something non-notable is 18 years old (allegedly: it could be a different station using the same name), doesn't automatically give it the right to have an article here. You admit there are "no official figures", which contradicts your previous statement about the number of listeners. Besides, anything heard on the station is not a valid source. Rapido (talk) 11:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super Get Info

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

I can't find any significant coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources for this software. This utility is mentioned in some Mac books, but the mentions are trivial along the lines "pay $20, and get to set the invisible bit from dialog box", and it's usually mentioned together with other similar software for manipulating file properties e.g., [45]. While I'll refrain from commenting on the audience that such software addresses, it may be worth mentioning in a Mac-equivalent of the Microsoft PowerToys article (from third parties), or one on Permissions in Mac OS X given that there's an entire booklet about the topic, in which this software is mentioned alongside the similar XRay product, [46], but a stand-alone wiki article for a dialog box seems rather silly. Pcap ping 13:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 12:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More non-notable spam. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 15:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SuperGetInfo is no longer available. I was coming here to find out what program(s) are being used as a substitute. Were it me, I would delete the self-promotion garbage where the article says “it has since been joined by Yojimbo” and add mention of what Mac users are using now that SuperGetInfo is no longer available. Greg L (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:50, 31 December 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 01:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no article. Miami33139 (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. NJA (t/c) 10:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hilltop Radio

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

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is factual, has content and references. While a minor station it is still notable as the zoo programming a new approach whcih moved to national broadcast on licensed radio stations in future years. Aleksdeg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment - Can you point out references and proof of factual content? It's completely unsourced! I notice you were the main editor of the article. If they are notable for whatever programming, zoo or not, then I would expect newspaper articles, etc about them. The Daily Telegraph article doesn't talk about Hilltop Radio and the photos tell us nothing. The Thameside radio reference mentioned Hilltop Radio a single time, and anyway fails WP:SPS. This article fails WP:OR and WP:N massively, and should be deleted. Rapido (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - I wasn't the main author - I simply constructively tidied up an existing entry. Given the clandestine nature of pirate radio there is bound to only be limited printed reference material available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aleksdeg (talk • contribs) 12:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sourcing can be fixed. Overall consensus is to keep. NJA (t/c) 10:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free Radio Santa Cruz

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

another non-notable pirate radio station, mostly unsourced Rapido (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has references, just need inline. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as subject appears to meet verifiability and notability thresholds with sustained coverage from multiple reliable third-party sources. - Dravecky (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- "Multiple reliabl"? Maybe 1 third party source. Of the 3 sources, one is the website of a show aired on the station and another is nothing more than a student newspaper. The third source is questionable too. All 3 sources are only about the FCC raid that shut down the station. So I say Delete. TJ Spyke 16:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Student newspapers are perfectly valid and acceptable sources, not "nothing more than". Bearcat (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Spyke. Terrible sourcing. The most notable thing it ever did was get shut down, apparently. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:59, 31 December 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 01:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The station is as notable as any other radio station in the area. True, the article needs better sources, but it deserves to be here. --mcpusc (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Force FM

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

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 11:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 18:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:38, 31 December 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 01:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

agree and delete per nom. Quite obviously non-notable. Tarheel95 (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this radio station. Joe Chill (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article claims they are "a leader" but fails to back that up in any way whatsoever. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zee 100

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

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 10:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:36, 31 December 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 01:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this radio show. Joe Chill (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim to notability either in the article or, susprisingly, even on their own website. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Only one valid keep argument, but overall the consensus that I feel is correct was to delete. NJA (t/c) 10:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Life Practice

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

Non-notable philosophy of the Zen teacher Clive Sherlock, who is nominated separately at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clive Sherlock. There's a 2004 article in the Guardian here discussing his Adaptation Practice, which is supposedly the same thing. However, I can find no significant reference to this elsewhere, certainly not in the medical literature, and one newspaper writeup does not make this theory notable. Glenfarclas (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in Gnews; web hits are all for the guy's own sites. Mangoe (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable philosophy and is well referenced to Zen Buddhism. Daily Life Practice is not unrelated but is the practical application in the West of Zen practice presented in a workable way as are Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction with Jon Kabat-Zinn and Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy with Segal, Williams and Teasdale. The name Adaptation Practice was devised by Clive Sherlock who, apparently, has recently changed it to Daily Life Practice. There is also a feature article on it in The Times newspaper 16 February 1999 which quotes a Dr Chris John and a social worker Robyn Broome and a patient Gary Jenkins. The article on Clive Sherlock also seems well referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowheights (talk • contribs) 11:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC) .[reply]

Keep I agree with last entry. There are adequate references for what is obviously a notable theory/philosophy/practice. The issue over the name of an article in the Guardian newspaper is only a question of what's in a name : it's obviously the same rose - theory/philosophy/practice.

I hope it is in order for me to write comments here. I am new to this and wrote a comment above 11.19, 28 December on the assumption that it would be allowed and to enter the discussion. I have edited the article Daily Life Practice by altering some of the text and by adding a more relevant references. I did this before 28 December note above. What would anyone recommend could make the article more acceptable to the Wikipedia requirements? Sherlock also appears in print in two published books on philosophy and psychology in which he has written chapters on psychology of Daily Life Practice (referring to it under its previous name Adaptation Practice).--Lowheights (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:35, 31 December 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 01:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article on the founder already contains the small amount of information necessary. I do not consider most of the references to be independent. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is also an article in The Times newspaper by Anjana Ahuja: THE TIMES - London February 16 1999, "Train your mind to fight depression: You can liberate yourself by learning to live with your feelings", which is more substantial and more detailed than the Guardian article. Another article appeared in the The Telegraph Magazine - feature article: Broken down by Clare Allan - 11 March 2006. --Lowheights (talk). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lowheights (talk • contribs) 09:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a better rounded article with the content at Clive Sherlock merged. The aggregate of the sourced material, including the guardian article is about the therapy, not the founder. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, The Times article includes quotes from another doctor, a senior social worker and patients all of whom had firsthand knowledge of the therapy times article Lowheights (talk 08:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Sherlock also has relevant chapters published in two books peer group reviewed: Book: Searching for New Contrasts edited by Riffert & Weber and Book: The Roar of Awakening edited by Derfer, Wang & Weber--Lowheights (talk) 10:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to !vote repeatedly. That makes your fifth, and I note that neither you nor User:Tractarian (the creator) has edited any topic other than this or Clive Sherlock. Glenfarclas (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, On the notability point, it seems to me that a unique therapeutic approach such as this, with its relationship with a notable eastern philosophy and notable Zen teacher (one of the few European Zen teachers, Ven. Myokyo-ni), could not fail to be of interest to many people. In terms of whether the interesting content is referenced, there are many references of many different kinds: several examples in the national press, in journal articles, and books. --Tractarian talk • contribs) 21:52, 14 January 2010

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Station M

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

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 10:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if deleted Redirect to List of M postal codes of Canada, as "Station M" is a frequently quoted postal station in Canada. 70.29.211.9 (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant coverage, doesn't meet the GNG. Garibaldi Baconfat 20:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this radio station. Joe Chill (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RJN

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

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 10:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Along with MAR, these are the two stations that are notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - can you explain RJN's notability, as currently it appears to fail WP:N? Rapido (talk) 11:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please note this has been AFD'd before - twice - altho' this may not be obvious as a different title was used this time: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Radio_Jackie_North and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Radio_Jackie_North_(2nd_nomination). Both times, result was delete. Rapido (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:29, 31 December 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 01:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this radio station. Joe Chill (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ugh. I challenge Andy Dingley to show that this subject is indeed notable by providing evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Primary sources and geocities (LOL) pages don't cut it. Besides, didn't Yahoo take Geocities down last year?????? We should probably task a bot to remove all those links. JBsupreme (talk) 11:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Hind's Rebel Radio or Sue Carpenter's 40 Watts from Nowhere should do for published books. For newspapers, there's catalogued coverage (mostly of RIB raids) on the conceptnews.org website. This also applies to MAR.

I wasn't aware that also having coverage on geocities removed any credibility that a topic might otherwise have.

As I've said before, most of these pirates are thoroughly non-notable and I can't justify keeping them. However (of the North West pirates) these two stations were long-established and stable, so do warrant coverage. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even so much as the barest claim of notability in the article. Probably should be SALTed now that it's been deleted at 3 seperate AFDs, the last of which was just months ago. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I second the above opinion to WP:SALT the article name, if the outcome is delete. Rapido (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I also second the above opinion to WP:SALT, should this article be deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

87X Community Radio

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

non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 17:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article is no longer unreferenced (I added an in-depth Tampa Tribune article) but does need another reliable source or two before it could be said to meet the WP:GNG. While pirate radio stations are not granted the same general notability that a government-licensed broadcast radio station enjoys, there is nothing inherent to pirate radio station articles that demands that deletion as long as they meet WP:GNG. - Dravecky (talk) 07:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)- Dravecky (talk) 07:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:20, 31 December 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 01:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The source is local. Joe Chill (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kot Najeebullah

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

Content fork/duplicate of Kot Najibullah. I do not think a redirect is in order due to this, but if more experienced editors advocate redirection I would understand. Tiderolls 07:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC) l[reply]

This is obviously a redirect/merge, because the Kot Najeebullah article actually has a source (and a Government one at that also being an administrative subdivision) - compared to the other one which doesn't. The same place can sometime be transliterated in slightly different ways in English (I usually notice them this time not). But to argue for the deletion of an article on the above grounds is absurd. Pahari Sahib 08:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If by merge you mean add the the link to Kot Najibullah, I would say that sounds like a good idea. I would have said the same two weeks ago when I asked for your opinion. Regards Tiderolls 11:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have been very busy of late, some things precedence over editing Wiki - are you saying you only nominated because I failed to respond - hmmm.Pahari Sahib 10:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:16, 31 December 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 01:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for nominating the article is stated in the nomination. Of course real life concerns take precedence over Wikipedia editing. I raised the subject of my post on your talk page to counter your characterization of my nomination as “absurd”. My comment was in no way meant to cast your lack of response in any unfavorable light; I simply wanted to illustrate that I had sought other courses of action before nominating the article. Regards Tiderolls 15:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as uncontested prod. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PC64

(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) 03:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I used this in the past, but I have no idea if it has significant coverage. There appear to be separate articles for a number of Commodore 64 emulators, and if they are in similar states, I'd suggest a merge into one larger article over successive deletions.--Milowent (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we seem not to have a general article on Commodore 64 emulation; this would be worth a mention there, but not as a stand alone article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:07, 31 December 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 01:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the existing article has zero sources and fails WP:V and WP:N. A general article on C64 emulation should be written, and source based information on this software might fit there. This content won't be necessary for a source based re-write. Miami33139 (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. LOL, am I allowed to follow up Miami33139? *eyeroll* I just searched Google Books and Google News Archives, found nothing. Not even one single relevant match, not even in passing. JBsupreme (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Sri Lanka: pre-Colonial era (500 BC - 1505 AD)

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

The history of Sri Lanka does not only include the periods of the pre-Colonial era and the post-Colonial era when there have been many different stages of the history of Sri Lanka such as prehistory, ancient history, medieval history, colonial history and twentieth century history. Plus this is just a copy of all the information related to the page taken from the History of Sri Lanka page. Blackknight12 (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the content is indeed just a copy, possibly with a redirect if pertinent and/or a merge if the content of the new article differs/includes extra information. Zelse81 (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just took a brief look at the colonial one (and I do emphasize, brief), comparing some passages to others. Seems to indeed be a compilation from various articles, but I'd urge people to take a closer look! Zelse81 (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On a short inispection it becomes obvious that the article is not a copy of the material at history of Sri Lanka, but are a s spinnout article fronm that article going into greater depth of description of the topic. This is completely standard practice. It does need expansion, but there is no policy based reason to delete.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was before I created Ancient history of Sri Lanka and Medieval history of Sri Lanka because Sri Lankan History is more complex than just pre and post colonial eras. Currently there is no need for this article because all the information is properly seperated into the articles I had made.--Blackknight12 (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appropriate spinout article, as for the history of everywhere else. Many of the sections seem to be already expanded. The rest should be, and helping do that would have made more sense than this nomination. DGG ( talk ) 01:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rescope if scholarly sources encourage a different break-off point. This is a proper spinout due to it's length. Them From Space 04:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The one keep argument was pretty well refuted. Smashville^talk 15:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blackie Starks

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

Fails WP:BIO. Been in lots of minor bands! Not enough. Been in one major band! Not enough, under WP:MUSIC. Ironholds (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 02:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC, and the tone and content strongly suggests this was written by Starks himself, up to and including a link right to iTunes where you can buy the guy's album... all that's missing to make this an obvious ad would be big text saying CLICK HERE TO BUY NOW!!! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the byrules, a notable subject must meet at least one of the criteria to be considered. The subject of this article meets several. Follow the links and do your own research.

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. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)
Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nafariusjones (talk • contribs) 04:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those apply to musical groups and musicians performing individually. Bandmembers have a different set of standards. Ironholds (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria was pulled straight from the [[47]] page under the section that explains the requirements for musicians... Are you telling me that the wikipedia rules page is incorrect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nafariusjones (talk • contribs) 04:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, see what I wrote. The section starts "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria"; this is to cover ensembles or musicians who perform individually, not musicians who perform as part of a band. See the section at the bottom "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article". Ironholds (talk) 05:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article seems legit. It is a well written and lengthy article that would be a shame to delete. Although it needs some cleaning up (Typos, and a more unbiased approach), it is overall a worthy article. Although the majority of his works are not noteworthy, there are some of his accomplishments that validate this articles' place on Wikipedia. In particular, the work he has done with NASCAR Images is very notable. As a NASCAR fan, I am familiar with that particular area of his career. In short, the article shold be kept, but reworked into a more unbiased article.--Johncoracing48 (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show exactly how, under what policy, his NASCAR work allows him to pass WP:BIO? Ironholds (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inadequate notability under WP:Music and WP:Bio. --A1octopus (talk) 18:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment His work with NASCAR Images qualifies him as notable because of his work with a major administration. It states in WP:Music the 10th qualification under criteria for musicians and ensembles:Has performed music for a work of media that is notable. If NASCAR Images (Now called NASCAR Digital Media) is not a notable administration, then it shouldn't have a place on Wikipedia either.--Johncoracing48 (talk) 15:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quote the full thing; "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. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.)". It's a single performance on a NASCAR compilation album. Ironholds (talk) 20:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a song that served as the theme song at the beginning of most NASCAR Images films from 2003-2004. I know this song and it is used heavily in NASCAR. I was watching a Hendrick Motorsports promo video last year and that song was playing during most of the video. It's popularity on the NASCAR scene makes the song itself notable enough for an article. Shouldn't that make the writer of the song notable too?--Johncoracing48 (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

..Except it wasn't written by him, it was written by his band :P. WP:MUSIC rules are complex. There's a way of saying that the NASCAR popularity makes the band notable, which makes Starks notable, but that's rather a Walled Garden. Ironholds (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless of your walled gardens, Starks is still notable for doing something famous. If you refuse to find notability in his NASCAR work, surely something can be found elsewhere.--Johncoracing48 (talk) 12:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Littman (historian)

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

Biographical article is sourced only with websites connected to the subject of the article (a journal article by him; his wife's personal homepage; his publisher's blurb on Amazon.com (EDIT: actually, it is not clear whether/what involvement he had with the book in question - the Amazon page does not mention his name, but that of Vernon David Lipman); his personal webpage). Based on my own Googling (which may not have been exhaustive), this does not appear easily remediable, although there does appear to be independent interest in him on the part of some bloggers. There is consensus (I think it is unanimity amongst currently active editors) on the article talkpage that this article is suitable for an AfD nomination. (EDIT: Actually, at least one had not yet commented). The difficulty in finding Reliable Sources concerning the subject may be leading to editing disputes. I feel the logical solution to this is an AfD nomination. FormerIP (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added comment. I want to share that when I first encountered this article, the opening was "David Littman (b. July 4, 1933, London) is a British historian and, according to his wife, a human rights activist at the United Nations in Geneva". I found this very amusing, and I hope it has made you smile too. I think it is symptomatic, though, of an article about which something needs to be done. (Thanks to the editor who fixed this - I was too busy snickering). --FormerIP (talk) 01:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further added comment. If he is determined to be notable, there also appears to be dispute amongst editors as to what he may be primarily notable for. It has been suggested that he is notable as an historian. He is published on a number of historical topics, although it is not clear how significant these publications are. Some editors appear to find the description of him as "historian" to by incorrect. It is also suggested that he may be a significant human rights activist. He appears to have attended at least one meeting organised by the UN (I would suggest this is true of thousands of people) on behalf of World Union for Progressive Judaism. They don't mention him on their website, however, as far as I can see, although they list scores of members and associates. It has also been suggested that he may be notable because of his links to Mossad. This has been controversial, and appears to be sourced only to a blog (EDIT: a better source for this has now been found).).

Anyone commenting may wish to also consider whether there is any particular one of these headings under which the subject's primary notability may fall. --FormerIP (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny as it may be, it is actually better to write "according to his wife" then to state this claim as a fact. We can't just put whatever his wife is writing on her home page into an encyclopedia. Just imagine what would happen if she suddenly decided to hate his guts, for whatever reason? Article is terribly lacking in RS, which comes in addition to lack of notability. -- Heptor _talk 17:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It is also suggested that he may be a significant human rights activist. He appears to have attended at least one meeting organised by the UN (I would suggest this is true of thousands of people) on behalf of World Union for Progressive Judaism. They don't mention him on their website, however, as far as I can see, although they list scores of members and associates. It has also been suggested that he may be notable because of his links to Mossad. This has been controversial, and appears to be sourced only to a blog." What about this: "The Israel Intelligence Heritage and Commemoration Center at Glilot recently bestowed upon David G. Littman, the World Union’s spokesman to UN bodies in Geneva, its Hero of Silence award for his work in conjunction with the Mossad in “Operation Mural,” the smuggling of 530 Moroccan children to Israel in the summer of 1961." etc.[48] This seems to address both complaints. Beit Or 16:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Beit. This appears to me to be the first usable source anyone has found. I don't think it shows notability, because it is from Littman's own organisation, but I do think it is an RS for certain factual claims. I have commented further here: Talk:David_Littman_(historian)#World_Union_for_Progressive_Judaism, and I will amend what I wrote above. --FormerIP (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficient publications to show distinction in his own right. The appropriate editing referred to above seems to have already been accomplished. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he is distinguished (I have no basis on which to judge), but that is not the same thing as notable for WP purposes. Also, being published (any number of times) does not amount to notability in itself. If good RS material establishing his notability can be found, however, I will agree. At the moment, I am unable, for example, to find any reviews of his work, works by other authors that cite him or any mention of him in traditional media. --FormerIP (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many works by others that cite his work, as well as dozens of mentions of him in RS media.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poorly sourced as an "historian". He does not seem to be an official historian, accredited in an university or something. Some think-thanks publications like MEQ mention it that way, but this seems to be insufficient to qualify him as such. He could appear as notable for his involvement in "Operation Mural" in Marocco in 1961, an operation for which he has been awarded at a high level by Mossad. However, the sourcing for this has not been accepted by some editors: it's only sourced by blogs, and I've been denied to use it. I don't think he could be mentionned for his activities in various NGOs, labelled "humanists", but that is debatable. He is also active in some milieux involved with european and far-rightists (a la Vlaams Belang), about "counter jihad". If the acticle is kept, this should be mentionned, because it is properly sourced. Also, if the article is kept, I question the naming as "historian" in the title itself. In other words: if the article is kept, there is no reason to label him as "historian", and his referenced activities in some dubious european milieux should be mentionned. TwoHorned (talk) 09:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep Per FormerIP. ~~Complete lack of RS.~~ -- Heptor _talk 10:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that some reliable sources were found, but I don't think it's enough to build a complete article. -- Heptor _talk 21:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already a pretty complete one (certainly longer and better sourced than many biographies I've seen). What do you think is missing? Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 21:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! Fantastic rescue effort! -- Heptor _talk 19:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, RS for historian takes little to no effort to find. Copts in Egypt: a Christian minority under siege, by Martyn Thomas, Adly A. Youssef, p190; David Gerald Littman: Historian, born in London, received his BA and MA degrees in modern history and political science at Trinity College Dublin..... --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That demonstrates that he is published, Kansas Bear (he is one of the contributors to the book you cite), but not everyone who is published is notable enough to have a WP article dedicated to them. --FormerIP (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the two deletes were based on, Poorly sourced as an "historian". He does not seem to be an official historian, accredited in an university or something. and Complete lack of RS. Which both have been proven incorrect. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. A reference from a small conference hosted by organization like G2W is not sufficient to lqbel as "historian", as per WP standard; you must have different sources. And what is his official academic affiliation as historian ? And MEQ is not at all a "peer reviewed". It's a think-tank publication. TwoHorned (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And wtf is meant by "official historian", a phrase that should leave any thinking person with a sickening feeling in their stomach given its connection with state-control, authorisation, and self-censorship. Meowy 17:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...or seriousness, just to depart from all the bozos in liberal think-tanks who label them as "historians"... TwoHorned (talk) 13:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think another word for this is "professional". Littman does not appear to have ever held an academic teaching or research post, has never been employed by anyone as an historian and it looks unlikely he has ever been paid a significant amount for any of his historical writings (they are contributions to historical journals, for which significant payment would be unusual), so his not a self-employed historian. He also appears to have never been cited by any other author. At best, he is an amateur historian. --FormerIP (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, most "academics" are also not "professonal historians", their primary means of earning their income is not through writing history books, and book or article production will not be a big part of their everyday work - they are also "amateur historians", though without the freedom an unattached "amateur" status would bring. But we know on a wider scale where this leads to - disenfranchise a population, remove their right to have an opinion about a subject because they are not qualified in that subject, remove their right to take any action on their own initiative because they are not qualified to judge the implications of their actions. Meowy 18:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a joke ? Please refer to WP:PROF. TwoHorned (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per DGG and Kansas Bear. The article contains several reliable sources, including an article in The National Review, The peer-reviewed academic journal Middle East Quarterly etc... Los Admiralos (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)Following the closure of this AfD debate, this user was found to be a sockpuppet of the banned User:NoCal100.[reply]

However, these journal articles you refer to are articles written by him. These are not RS for the purpose of demonstrating his notability. It seems like no source which is not WP:SELFPUB describes him as an historian. --FormerIP (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copts in Egypt: a Christian minority under siege was not self-published by David Littman, as can be seen here[49]. All I see is alot of false assertions, "Poorly sourced as an "historian", "Complete lack of RS.","He also appears to have never been cited by any other author.",[50],[51],[52],[53],[54],[55],[56]. This appears more and more like an issue of personal animosity than a concern for encyclopedic quality. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@LosAdmiralos: do you think Middle East Quarterly is peer-reviewed academic ? TwoHorned (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I withdrew the "Complete lack of RS" claim. Some reliable sources appeared after the article was nominated for AfD. -- Heptor _talk 21:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. GS cites are 13, 6, 5, 2, 1. I do not know what is par for this field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

You may have already noticed this, but he is published under three versions of his name, as well as one joint nom de plume.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article is sourced per WP:BIO and he is published in peer-reviewed journals, enough to show some expertise in his field. freshacconci talktalk 22:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per peer reviewed academic and his publications infer notability. Off2riorob (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To quote from WP:PROF:"Simply having authored a large number of published academic works is not considered sufficient" for establishing academic notability. I have not seen evidence of significant number of reviews of his books or significant citability of his publications. I checked Worldcat for library holdings of several of his books and the results there are really low[57][58][59]. There is no evidence in the record of satisfying any of the other criteria of WP:PROF (such as significant scholarly awards, etc). Similarly, I do not see evidence of significant coverage of him under WP:ANYBIO. So appears to pass neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO, as far as I can tell. Nsk92 (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable for activities in the UN. I just added asnother reference from Der Spiegel aboit him and the controversy when he was banned by the UN Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is written primarily in the context of academic activity and Xxanthippe and Nsk92 have both shown that his scholarly output has not had sufficient impact (e.g. holdings, citations, not conferred with a notable awards or title, etc.) These are the standard metrics of WP:PROF and they've clearly not been satisfied. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete per WP:PROF. Will reconsider if more news-type or human rights related sources appear. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Keep now that RS have been found. Perhaps needs renaming. Though the subject is qualified as a historian, work as a historian is not the main reason for notability. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not pass any of WP:Prof categories. I could change my mind if more evidence regarding political activism emerges. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I don't think WP:PROF is the proper guidline here - he is notbale for things other than his academic achievements- such as his UN work and involvement in Operation Mural - I've added another link to the article, from a releiable source (Ha'artez) which is a detailed account of the latter. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROF is about his historian status (which even appears in the title of the page). TwoHorned (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't delete articles about people who are notable for things outside of academia just becasue they are not notable as academics. This guy's work in Operation Mural was covered by several reliable sources (Ha'haretz, Jerusalem Post), and is the topic of a documentray film. His work at the UN generated much controversy, which was again covered by numerous reliable sources (Der Spiegel being one). The fact that he is also a historian is sourced. The use of "Historian" in the title is just a disambiguation, to seperate him from a minor hockey player of the same name. A simple solution would be to remove the (historian) from the title, or replace it with (UN Human rights activist), if you feel the current title gives to much weight to his academic output in history. Nick Fitzpatrick (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks well enough referenced now. Peridon (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per DGG and Kansas Bear. His publications, a number of which are in peer-reviewed publications, are by themselves sufficient to demonstrate his notability for WP purposes. His UN activities, including his testimony as an "expert" before the UN Commission on Human Rights as discussed by Le Monde and the Jerusalem Post, and coverage of activities/writings in RSs, further establish his notability for WP purposes.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak keep~~ Per DGG. He seems to have enough publications to be a notable academic. Together with the UN related material it pushes him over to being notable. The Haaretz coverage and other coverage makes an argument that he passes WP:BIO straight up. Per new sourcing also all the way to opinion of keep JoshuaZ (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks quite well referenced at this point, is ref'd by others, seems to have acceptable notability. I can imagine readers out there who might want to know something about David Littman (historian). Probably not as many who are interested in David Littman (ice hockey) player, though, I reckon. Stellarkid (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epeefleche and others. The article needed improvement, not least due to partisan editing. It's cleaned up now, and notability is established by mention in RSs as National Review, Der Spiegel, Littman Library of Jewish Civilization (relation of his? I don't know, but it doesn't matter), Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post, and Le Monde. Whether you like these sources or not, they qualify as RS. --tickle me 02:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't even populated the article with text and refs reflecting the various sources found among ~~these articles, and~~ ~~these articles, and~~ ~~these books as well as~~ these sources yet, ~~nor this interesting article about him receiving the "Hero of Silence Order" from Israel's President in 2008,~~ but must say that this nomination reflects IMHO one of the more egregious failures to do a simple google search as suggested by wp:before before bringing an article to AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Egregious eh? --FormerIP (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::I don't know if 'Egregious' is the correct adjective, but it certainly does not look like you spent any effort at all looking for sources, prior to the nomination. All the recent RS additions to the article were easily found by other editors, and are available on-line. Now that these RS's have been found, how about withdrawing your nomination, as a gesture of good faith? Los Admiralos (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm wrong, and somehow the nom's google search missed them, I apologize, but though I tried to AGF, the dozens of articles a google search yielded led me to presume that wp:before had not been followed. But I'm willing to stand corrected, and apologize if I was wrong. At the same time, help from others w/the discussion now at the bottom of the article's talk page would be appreciated. I'm concerned that the article is being template-bombed w/ (IMHO) baseless COI and neutrality templates by an editor who simply does not like the subject's views.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look back at previous versions of the page. It previously recorded him as primarily an historian, which is still not supported by any RS. The search terms "'David Littman'" and "'David Littman' historian" did not yield good results and I was unable to find an RS. I posted on the talk page, and active editors agreed to AfD. Multiple editors have since conducted research allowing connections which have allowed for different search wording. This was something I was not able to do at the time, without being a very good guesser, or spending an awful lot of time (not a good investment, I thought, since the article initially appeared to be purely about a non-notable historian, with no secondary sources). I still feel that no RS material has been presented supporting Littman's notability as an historian. His role as an activist at the UN, I think, remains of questionable notability. Many many people have said many many things at the UN - we don't create articles about all of them. I think his role in Operation Mural is now established as notable. So I still have major issues with the way the article is constructed, because it does not give a proper reflection of reasons for notability. Also, the AfD seems to have spurred a flurry of activity which has turned a long pointless article into something that may actually end up being of interest, so I think the nomination was exactly the right thing. And since it is creating useful discussion, I think it should be allowed to roll on. --FormerIP (talk) 01:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple, independent RS that establish his notability. Beit Or 20:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google news search for his name and the words "human rights" show dozens of results about the man. [60] Dream Focus 00:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European Coordination for Accelerator Research and Development

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

This is yet another article on an FP7 project, part of a ongoing effort to get articles on Framework Programme projects onto Wikipedia. In this case, the entity seems to be some sort of bureaucratic clearinghouse, but it doesn't really matter, since there are no independent, reliable, secondary sources about it. In fact, there are only 48 regular Google hits. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 01:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There seems a total lack of material showing what this group has done , as distinct from the notable groups and experiments it has associated itself with. DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and DGG. It will take something before this kind of ephemeral consortia (that only exist for the duration of the grant) become notable. --Crusio (talk) 05:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swapper - iPhone and iPod Touch game

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

Although this is a newly created article, the subject fails our notability guidelines because this game hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Them From Space 01:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: What nom said. A cursory search reveals no good sources, and the article certainly doesn't make a case for notability. The youtube video only has a few hundred views :). ErikHaugen (talk) 01:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per both above and nom. Just another app among millions of others. I also think the article was poorly written, and provides no means of inclusion. This article would need quite a few more sources other than a Youtube video. Tarheel95 (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this game. Joe Chill (talk) 02:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I also couldn't find anything. This looks like just another bunch of non-notable puffery. —LedgendGamer 08:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is not yet any significant coverage of this subject. JBsupreme (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't appear to satisfy any notability guidelines; nothing on Google news. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Article was deleted as copyvio Listed at WP:CP for over 7 days, communication sent to OTRS demonstrate that the source material wasn't created by the site identified by CorenSearchBot, its origin and hence its licensing status cannot be demonstrated at this time. Article has therefore been deleted in accordance with the precautionary principle defined in Wikipedia's Copyright Policy. OTRS volunteers can verify ticket ID 2010010910020646.
Nothing precludes recreation with original language as the AfD issues haven't gathered consensus. MLauba (talk) 11:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wangchen Rinpoche

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

fails WP:BIO. Sourcing is limited to unreliable websites and a book by Kalu Rinpoche; since it's by his teacher, it hardly counts as independent. He pulls up curiously few google books searches, but there we are - non-notable. Ironholds (talk) 01:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC) He has some coverage in a book by an associate, but pulls up curiously few google, google books and google news sources. Seems to fail WP:BIO; coverage is on the borderline for significant, but certainly doesn't pass the test of "multiple" sources based on what I've found. Ironholds (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expert arbitration requested from Buddhism Project. Not only was Wangchen Rinpoche recognized as a tulku (reincarnated lama) by Kalu Rinpoche, one of the preeminent Tibetan Buddhists of the 20th century, but Wangchen Rinpoche is a lineage holder of Shangpa Kagyu, arguably the most exotic lineage in Tibetan Buddhism. In addition, Wangchen Rinpoche is known as a master of the Nyungne practice, and is the author of the definitive book on the subject. Sstovall19 (talk) 08:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a rule I'm missing somehow, that if a book is written by a subject's teacher it's unreliable? Please link to the precise rule, or its page with a direct quote. Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 20:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not unreliable, no; it's perfectly reliable as a verifiable source for verifying that information in an article is correct. However, sources used for determining notability are required to be independent of the subject; as WP:N says, independent "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject". Ironholds (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is an impressive and completely insulting misquotation of the relevant policy. "#"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.[4]" Is this how you plan to do it as an administrator? --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 20:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite insulting itself. What exactly is the problem, here? The work was produced by somebody affiliated with the subject. Note that the examples include the phrase "not limited to". Ironholds (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice the types of examples. Do you see anything about "works published by someone knowledgeable about the subject?" Biographies are written by people who know the subject, written by friends, teachers, acquaintances. The point of this policy is that they are not written by the subject or for the purpose of promoting the subject, not that biography is written by a complete stranger who never met the subject! --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 22:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Note, however that 1) it isn't a biography, 2) it only appears to mention Rinpoche briefly and 3) it's a single sources - 2 and 3 means that the article still fails WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need to phrase the AfD appropriately and accurately and to reflect real policy reasons for deletion. A teacher can be a problem, when the teacher turns to a devotee of the former pupil, and then this policy would apply. But you would have to make that case under COI. Please take care with AfDs. This area on wikipedia is a mess. There are weeks of discussions about deleting articles on topics with 1000s of google hits and weeks of discussion about deleting articles with their 3rd nomination by a blocked sock puppet. Nominations by deletionists who proudly proclaim they never bother to follow nominations they've created. At some point nominators need to take responsibility for their nominations. There's tons of crap on wikipedia with valid reasons for deletions. Find it and the valid reason, then nominate it for those reasons. But don't race to get as many nominations as possible for any reason whatsoever. We're still trying to create an encyclopedia here. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 22:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

..I didn't. I see your point about the interpretation of "independent"; when I wrote the nom, my interpretation was different. I have amended the nom now. Ironholds (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article has been blanked as a copyright problem, as it is an unusable close paraphrase of a previously published site for which verification of licensing release has not yet been provided. However, I believe that the AfD should be permitted to continue. While copyright concerns can be eradicated by permission, notability concerns are not so easily addressed. If the AfD holds that the subject is notable, the text will either need to be verified or replaced with rewritten content. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC) Garibaldi Baconfat 19:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Jenvey

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

This subject of this biography of a freelance journalist is of questionable notability and there are serious WP:BLP concerns. The subject has been named as contributing to some published articles but few have appeared in mainstream publications. Of the references in the article, the Sri Lankan Ministry of Defence is reproducing this article from Global Politician which appears to be a self-published source. The main point made by the CBS Evening News piece about Jenvey is that he is not significant. He has appeared in brief excerpts on TV news broadcasts but that does not amount to them being about him. The later section about doubts on his credibility is strongly linked to equally non-mainstream sources save for the latest news from 31 December 2009. Summing up, I doubt that he is notable as a journalist, and there are positive dangers in writing a properly verifiable article from reliable sources which accurately reports on the credibility debate. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that there is absolutely no question of notability of this subject. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 12:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My edits to this article have been almost entirely cite requests, and anti-vandalism. Nevertheless, the subject does appear to be a noteworthy crank who likes to market himself, and should remain. Parrot of Doom 01:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Relevant to UK reporting; this article covers someone who managed to create fake fear of terrorist articles in the UK press, has now been arrested by the police. His attempts to sock-puppet wikipedia are related but are insignificant. While it may originally have been a self-promotion entry, as the court case proceeds, I would expect it to change in content. SteveLoughran (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birdman Blaze

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

The only parrot magician in Singapore. Shameless self-promotion. Is the guy notable or just good at publicity? Sgroupace (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, although I love the photo. Promotional page for a non-notable performer, local-color arts section news clipping aside. No sign that he meets WP:ENT (e.g., "a large fan base or a significant 'cult' following"), nor WP:GNG. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-promotion by a non-notable person (article created by an account named "Birdmanblaze") Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - so hard to agree with deletion, considering the amazing photos and the concept of "parrot magician," but it is rather spammy, there are no Google news hits, and its subject doesn't appear to satisfy WP:ENT. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retiring the public debt

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

PROD removed. Wikipedia is not a dictionary/phrasebook. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Government debt. This appears to be just a synonym for what I would have called "paying down the national debt"; it doesn't seem to be the unique name of a notable concept. I don't know how useful a redirect would be, but I suppose it's theoretically plausible. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect per above. The article's contents don't even correctly match the title - the article is specific to the USA, while the title is generic. The author needs to realise the USA is not the only country in the world. JIP | Talk 08:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICDEF. Cnilep (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdistan Independence Party

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

This article fails to meet the notability guidelines , Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability --Alborz Fallah (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we can verify that Aref Ahmadi and Karox Ahmadi represent a group based in Oslo, Norway calling themselves the Kurdistan Independence Party/Independence Party of Kurdistan/PSK,[61][62] but the actual nature of the group is unverified (more than two people?) and it's almost certainly not notable. So, delete and redirect to Action Party for the Independence of Kurdistan. Fences&Windows 16:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 16:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability from the article, no English-language source for the English-language Wikipedia. It was founded 3 or 4 years ago, but the rest of the information is lacking. If it's a real political party, one would think that it had candidates on the ballot somewhere. Kurdistan independence is not a new concept. Mandsford (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; stating "If it's a real political party, one would think that it had candidates on the ballot somewhere" regarding an underground/exile party from Iran shows a rather meagre understanding of the political situation in Iran. Some links mentioning the party; [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]. --Soman (talk) 14:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite right about the ballot box statement, politics is not exactly free and fair in Iran. What do those stories say about the party, and are the sources reliable? (I can't read them, it's not Farsi as Google translate returns gibberish). Fences&Windows 00:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are Kurdish language blogs . --Alborz Fallah (talk) 08:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not blogs. --Soman (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So... what are they and what do they say? Fences&Windows 03:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's a more trickier question. The PDKI links have passing mentions of the party's participation in events. Ñot sure about others. --Soman (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sounds like a friends and family group to me. Certainly not a party! Must be deleted ASAP.--Professional Assassin (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC) Garibaldi Baconfat 19:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philadelphia Canoe Club

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Philadelphia Canoe Club

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

Non-notable club. Only possible claim to notability is its longevity. No independent sources, just the club's website. Note: This is the first nomination (Twinkle glitch). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: There has been some progress along the lines of references, but there is still much info in the article that appears to be promotional (trying to attract new members), and also unsourced information that is likely known only to those involved in the club. We'll let this discussion go to its completion and see how it goes. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is not significantly covered in independent, reliable sources, and, as such, does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Laurinavicius (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that reliable sources have been added, the article meets our notability standards. Laurinavicius (talk) 20:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added references from two different newspapers. - Eastmain (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources are available to make it a valid article. Has significance in canoeing in the states. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 12:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significance of Philadelphia Canoe Club: Though an outdoor activity club, the organization has a prominent position within the paddling community, being either the 2nd or 3rd oldest such organization in the nation. The club is a major training ground for new canoeists and kayakers and its location in a major urban center affords it significant stature in the outdoor sports scene. Philadelphia Canoe Club has produced several Olympians over the years including participants in the 1936, 1952, 1956 and 1972 games. The club is also the repository of several excellent examples of wooden canoes and kayaks on display in the clubhouse, itself a structure of significance in the city of Philadelphia. On display is a restored 34-foot 1911 Old Town War Canoe, one of only a handful still in existence in the world. The clubhouse is open to the public during meetings held the third Monday every month at 7:00 p.m. —Preceding unsigned comment added by W3BIG (talk • contribs) 23:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. In weighing the arguments below, I gave particular consideration to those that addressed the reason for nomination, which was the notability or otherwise of the article subject. Because this is a biographical article it must meet both the general notability guidelines (GNG) and the biographical notability guidelines (essentially a subset of the GNG); these define notability in Wikipedia's terms, which are very different from definitions one might find elsewhere. I discounted those comments both for and against deletion that did not reference Wikipedia policy or were otherwise irrelevant.

I appreciate the arguments for deletion and understand why—taken singly—some of the claims to the subject's notability may appear weak. However, I believe that those arguing for "keep" have demonstrated that enough collective "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" exists for a standalone article. If it is felt that some of the sources used are not reliable or independent, the best place to explore that would be on the article talk-page or at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Regarding the page move suggested by a couple of participants, I see no agreement for the title of the target page; again, this should be discussed further on the article talk-page so a consensus can be reached. EyeSerene^talk 18:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel S. Razón

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

Fails WP:GNG, lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. A Google search for "Daniel S. Razón" returns over 120,000 hits with roughly 99% of them being namesakes. The only real sources are either from UNTV, where the subject is the CEO and host of most of the programs, or from blogs and public forums written almost entirely by members of the religious organization MCGI, where the subject is vice-presiding minister. Of the three Sun Star Pampanga articles used as references, only one is truly about the subject ADD leader declared 'persona non grata', but does being an official persona non grata in a town in Pampanga, Philippines make a person notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia? Shannon Rose ^Talk 18:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing of interest. He's a man of many interest but there's no proof that he excelled in any, or at least excelled enough to be noted and deserving of an entry in an encyclopedia. Conrad940 (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources are independent, which the nominator overlooked. Starczamora (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I appreciate what you're trying to say but if you will just take some time to review what I wrote above you will realize that I did not really overlook anything. Basically, there are 3 sources given 1. Titik Filipino; 2. ABS-CBN Interactive; and 3. Sun Star Pampanga. 1. The Titik Filipino website is in itself non-notable, it is simply one of the many websites that sell lyrics for songs, in this case OPM, unofficially, meaning to say with or without the consent of the owner. WP:RS gave us the definitive guideline on the type of reference(s) that we should use here, which are "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This unknown and anonymous website is actually disqualified as a reliable source, but even if we do accept it, does self-producing a music album make one notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia? How many self-produced music albums from individual performers and bands are out there? Thus, I agree completely with Conrad940 above, he may be a man of many interests but he never excelled in any one of them to the point of attaining notability. 2. ABS-CBN interactive is a reliable source, but the article mentioned does not even exist! And even if it once did, according to the article in question, it merely spoke about a disqualification of one Party List. Would the disqualification of a Party List where the subject is a member candidate make him notable? How many candidates and Party Lists have been disqualified by the Philippine COMELEC for this or that reason? Does each of them have WP articles? 3. Now, the Sun Star Pampanga (a provincial tabloid) I have already discussed above. None of the 3 articles cited are directly about the subject save one, that he, a deputy religious leader, has been declared a Persona Non-Grata in the town of Apalit. So what? He is notable because of that? Google News returns 2 hits both promotional opinion pieces (Op-Ed). Google books returned zero hits. And Google Scholar returned zero hits. The lack of any genuine relevant and substantial 3rd party coverage from reliable sources speaks volumes about the theorized notability of the guy. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 15:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If you ditch the diacritics (which shouldn't be there anyway) and the middle initial, Google searches explode to 264,000 results. Dunno why the article is named like this. Probably should be moved to Daniel Razon. –Howard the Duck 19:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Raw "hit" (search result) count is a very crude measure of importance. Some unimportant subjects have many "hits"... Hit count numbers alone can only rarely 'prove' anything about notability, without further discussion of the type of hits, what's been searched for, how it was searched, and what interpretation to give the results." WP:SET – Shannon Rose ^Talk 21:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know, i move the page to Daniel Razon (broadcaster). I dont like to delete that article, this is religious leader and public servant. - Gabby 10:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I not keen on the article's subject, but perhaps you can utilize those "crude measure of importance" aka hits into something that is useful in Wikipedia -- making them as references. This guy prior to being a part of Ang Dating Daan was radio and TV news presenter, that should be enough to cross the bar of notability. –Howard the Duck 03:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is being a radio and TV news presenter don't necessarily make one notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. I mean, just browse through your latest Brittannica or Grolier and take note of the radio and TV personalities included there to have an idea of what it means to be notable in those fields. In WP, verifiable evidence for notability consists mainly of substantial coverage in reliable sources and published peer recognition. Another reason why it is difficult to weed-out RS is because the subject is a massive self-promoter and so is his org. Most coverage that may seem reliable at first glance can be traced directly to him or via one of his org's many auxilliaries. Thus, failing the "Independent of the subject" portion of WP:GNG, which excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 04:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Grolier Encyclopedia didn't have an article for the FIFA World Cup. With that said, sources are available. Someone has just to look for them. As I've said he was a broadcast journalist even before he joined the Ang Dating Daan. It's just someone has to look for them. From the net or offline. –Howard the Duck 04:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen several news articles prior from his involvement with Ang Dating Daan, I'd add them later today. –Howard the Duck 05:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is moot. Apparently, he has an musical album. And it was certified gold in the Philippines. That passes the notability criteria for a musician. –Howard the Duck 05:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Razon's Isang Araw Lang album is produced by Breakthrough and Milestones International (BMPI), which he owns. If ever it turned gold, he awarded himself that. A true gold record award in the Philippines should come from the Philippine Association of the Record Industry. There is also no RS supporting the claim that the record was awarded gold by the Philippine Association of the Record Industry. The key here is Wikipedia:Notability (music) >> Music recording sales certification >> List of music recording sales certifications >> Philippine Association of the Record Industry. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 18:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The award was given by "Able Music Incorporated" which is a member of PARI. –Howard the Duck 18:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for confirming that the award did not come from PARI. All legitimate commercial record productions in the Philippines are members of PARI. PARI awards gold certificates, not the members. Please produce an RS stating that the subject's album was awarded gold by the Philippine Association of the Record Industry. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 19:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The award came from PARI. It was awarded from a member organization.

Let me make myself clear, it is the recording companies who give these "awards" to their own artists. I remember Mandy Moore being given such an award when her first three albums went x times platinum by Sony Music Philippines. The award being given by a member company is the real thing. –Howard the Duck 19:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Produced by Breakthrough and Milestones Productions International (BMPI), Isang Araw Lang, the album has a total of ten tracks, including the carrier single of the same name." (Danielrazon.com). It was Breakthrough and Milestones Productions International (BMPI) who produced the album, not the PARI member Able Music Incorporated. Bernie Refuerzo of Able Music Incorporated only did the honor of handing the award to Razon at the YCONCON: Isang Araw Lang concert. If you stand by your argument that such awards are given by their producers who are PARI member organizations and not by PARI itself then Breakthrough and Milestones Productions International (BMPI) is not a member of PARI and Razon's non-RS "gold album" is simply self-given and still illegitimate. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 22:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was given out my a PAMI member, that trumps all of this self-produced stuff. color="#FFA500">the]] Duck 02:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to you, such awards are not given directly by PARI itself but by record producers who are PARI members instead, as in the case of Mandy Moore and her label Sony Music Philippines. I have already showed you that the album was self-produced by Razon via his Breakthrough and Milestones Productions International (BMPI). My source is Razon's own website. Now, BMPI is not a PARI member, which means that BMPI's gold record award is bogus! If a gold record award automatically makes a recording artist notable, then Razon is not notable because he was not given any such award by the Philippine equivalent to the American RIAA. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although his album (as you said it) was self-produced), the fact to the matter is it was given by a PARI member. I dunno how things work out there but perhaps BMPI was the producer and Able Music was its distributor, but it was given by Able Music would be enough to push this towards the notability criterion for music, among others. –Howard the Duck 13:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the subject is he simply isn't notable. And it's not difficult to see that! But here, those who like to believe that he is notable are using every trick in the book to disprove that glaring fact. When they can't find anything notable about his being a vice-president of a minor sect, they run to his being a news reporter. But he is also not notable in that field! So, now they run to his being a singer. But the gold award, which is supposed to redeem him by WP policy, turned-out to be a self-given hoax of an award! Which is not surprising because the subject is known to be involved in various self-serving hoaxes as the article itself tells us (e.g. their party list was disqualified because of this). Now, the guy also does nature photography and conducts exhibits. Why don't we try that card? It may work! C'mon, let's just be honest with ourselves and nuke this darn article as well as others who don't belong in an encyclopedia. Let's clean-up Wikipedia! – Shannon Rose ^Talk 23:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You gotta explain what this means: "Follower of International Fugitive Eliseo Soriano's Dirty Tricks Foiled Again!". I don't know your motive or who you are working for, but I suspect you're either in one of those organizations that are against MCGI, or is heavily influenced by it. I am neither a member of the MCGI or the organizations opposed by it, and I suggest to the closing admin to weigh this fact. It seems that you will not be convinced that this guy is notable. I mean, he was on morning TV at GMA Network for five years even before being a member of the MCGI, declared a persona non grata by a town in Pampanga, run for office but was disqualified, and is a head of a news department of a TV station. The last one alone is good enough reason alone for him to have an article. I won't be making any more comments on this issue, except when somebody else asks me something about this, but I implore the closing admin to check out Shannon Rose's edits and motives before coming up with a decision. –Howard the Duck 02:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another note for the closing admin/user: If it turns out that the closing user is an admin/sysop, and the article is kept, I suggest moving the article to Daniel Razon without the middle initial and the diacritic. –Howard the Duck 05:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Follower of International Fugitive Eliseo Soriano's Dirty Tricks Foiled Again!" means exactly what it says. That for three or four times in a row, checkusers that I have personally requested revealed that people who edit war by persistently removing all duly-sourced negative reports about Eli Soriano and his anomalous sect turned-out to be the same person. If sockpuppetry is not a dirty trick and these people are not followers of this religious leader then I am Spiderman! Please see examples 1, 2, 3.

Now, let me go through your list here: 1. "Was on morning TV at GMA Network for five years even before being a member of the MCGI" – does not establish notability; 2. "Declared a persona non grata by a town in Pampanga," – I am not sure about this one (that is why I am asking those who know for sure: is this enough to make one notable? If yes I will change the notability clause to reflect what the man is truly notable for); 3. "Run for office but was disqualified" – thousands of candidates get disqualified by the COMELEC each time (actually, it was the Party List that he belonged to that was disqualified, please see Comelec disqualifies 152 party lists for 2010 elections), does not establish notability; 4. "Head of a news department of a TV station" – does not establish notability (not included in WP:BIO as an automatic indicator of notability).

Though pro-keep editors are yet to provide even one RS supporting notability, all of the articles contained on non-RS websites (mostly blogs and forums) floating in the Internet fall under WP:SBST's "...routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article." and completely failing standard yardsticks: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." and 1. The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one. 2. The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. WP:ANYBIO – Shannon Rose ^Talk 03:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the pro-keep editors are forgetting what the main issue of the proposal to delete this article and that is notability. What is notability anyway? webster.com defines it as worthy of note, remarkable, distinguished, prominent. As Shannon Rose already enumerated above, Mr Razon really hasn't done anything of note, nothing remarkable. His claim to fame are his being a TV announcer, singer and televangelist. Would you agree that if one is a prominent filipino singer, newscaster or even a televangelist that he will no doubt appear in at least one of the two major T.V. stations , namely ABS-CBN and GMA, aired outside of the Philippines. Unlike his former colleagues, he has no TV show, morning or otherwise that is seen in the U.S. through The Filipino channel. His "album" is not played on any radio station carried by these same two major TV station. Mike Velarde, a prominent televangelist has a show every Sunday. Given that he may well deserve a Philippines-only wikipedia, not en.wikipedia. He doesn't stand out and there's really nothing of interest. Please delete. Conrad940 (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin: Please consider that the subject completely fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 16:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article makes reasonable claims of notability, but I'm not seeing enough coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:BIO. If better sources exist, could someone please provide them? Robofish (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're 100% correct. This person, due to a gazillion of interests, can make a gazillion claims to notability, but to establish even one of those claims by Wikipedia standards is absolutely impossible. I actually debated myself using all sorts of loopholes before nominating the article for deletion. Going strictly by Wikipedia standards, I was unable to find even one RS supporting notability. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 20:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Because he is the right choice for god. Gabby (talk) 16:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so we need to keep the article "Because he is the right choice for god"? Makes so much sense. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 20:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and requesting move to Daniel Razón, middle initials are not applied in encyclopedic articles. Only Harry S. Truman does available. ApprenticeFan ^{talk contribs} 12:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. Another fantastic and invincible argument in favor of keeping the article! Because how can anyone argue with an argument that does not exist? Perhaps ApprenticeFan mistook this place as some sort of "election" forum where one simply votes. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 20:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I'd favor ditching the diacritic too. See Filipino orthography. –Howard the Duck 12:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do you have to mention the removal of the acute "o"? As you completely failed to establish the notability of the subject in line with WP:GNG and WP:BIO, you are now using the "you should not have used the diacritic in Googling his name" tactic. Both of us did searches without the diacritic and still were unable to find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (closing admin, please peruse the previous discussions to validate this) but only blogs, forums, and other sources perfectly matching WP:SBST's "...routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article." – Shannon Rose ^Talk 20:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pot, meet kettle (on yourself repeating WP:GNG. I didn't "vote" twice. I merely told him/her to consider ditching the diacritic too since s/he's into moving the article anyway. That was normal procedure. This is not a vote. I've been involved with too many AFDs I know how this thing works. I'd leave it to the closing user on how to judge this. –Howard the Duck 11:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously-flawed logic. My first mention of WP:GNG was to the closing admin, the second was directed to yourself and only in passing. Your diacritic trick has been used for the same audience twice, with it being the sole point of both messages. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 18:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's actually sad if the pro-keep poster here rely solely on google hits to justify notability. added to that is exactly what Shannon had pointed out, the hits are mainly from supporters of Mr Razon. If we take away google and only had newspapers and radio we'd still read and hear about Pat Robertson, Conan O'brien and Susan Boyle, but not Mr Razon.Conrad940 (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Since I'm here anyway) I don't think the Manila Standard ref I provided are uh... supporters of whatever organization Razon is/are (a) part/s of. –Howard the Duck 11:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but your Manila Standard reference falls under WP:SBST's "...routine news coverage such as announcements, sports coverage, and tabloid journalism is not a sufficient basis for a topic to have its own standalone article." – Shannon Rose ^Talk 18:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. I've actually found Google News links I could use as references, but you'd need $$$ to see the articles so I'd have to use the trusty Wayback Machine to see them. I'd probably do this on Friday night. Unless, of course the Manila Bulletin is not a reliable source or if the organization/s Razon is/are a part of owns MB. 11:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I found the article, but it is unavailable even in the Wayback Machine I had to ask someone to sift through the dusty archives here (it wasn't that hard to find anyway). I believe this is enough as the MB article discusses extensively what happened in 2005. I'd be adding another one on the gold record thingy later. –Howard the Duck 13:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found the article in the internets. It is referenced in the article already. –Howard the Duck 13:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The gold record award article you placed there is an Op-Ed column, which falls under "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers." WP:RS – Shannon Rose ^Talk 18:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: A notice of discussion was posted at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel S. Razón. –Howard the Duck 13:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sufficent information and references given to justify encylopedia entry. Its nota paper based encylopedia. Article could do with a clean up and rewrite.Cathar11 (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as a "paper encyclopedia" only encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is an encyclopedia whether it is on paper, CD ROM, or the Internet. They all follow similar standards for establishing notability. This is not a paper encyclopedia is a meaningless smokescreen to blur clearly laid-out distinctions between notable and unnotable bios. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 18:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability standards are not designed to be overly punitive of articles which are supposedly devoid of any referential substance, nor are they designed to be loose enough as to allow articles to pass unnoticed without reliable sources. The question here is what notability vis-a-vis reliable sources entails: are the sources reliable enough as to provide an accurate picture of the subject's notability? So far, I'd say they're neck-and-neck. However, do understand that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and we can have articles on anyone and anything as long as they have the references to back it up. Currently all I see is a strong (and increasingly uncivil, as evidenced from edit summaries and correspondence with Conrad940, among others) effort from the nominator to discredit the article without making any effort to find RSes which can aid in the article's development, which is precisely what keep-leaning editors are doing. AfD is not designed to serve as an avenue for improving articles, but it seems to be that it is beginning to be the case. I'm neutral, but I remain wholly unconvinced by the supposed unnotability of Daniel Razon, contrary to the nominator's claims that "99.9% of the population haven't even heard of this guy's name!". --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colin west (author)

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

Bringing it here rather than PROD because I hope I'm wrong on this, but the author does not appear to meet notability requirements. My search of the web threw up some brief biographical details from publisher websites but nothing more except coincidence of words and social networks. HJMitchell You rang? 11:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the author has published numberous popular children's books that are readily verifiable via Google, Amazon and others. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 12:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Handschuh. Chris (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced BLP. Alio The Fool 18:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while this current article is absolutely lousy, the author is notable, having published with macmillan/kingfisher, puffin, some brit pubs i have passing knowledge of, and his titles get reviewed in places like library journal and childrens literature journals. given about 10 minutes, i could create a decent article with references. of course, hes no shakespeare, but he is notable in his field. i will try to add some material to the article, but i hope other afd'ers take the time to google him and confirm this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I spent a fair bit of time looking for anything resembling a reliable source on this guy via google searches and got nothing (hence the AfD) but if you can find anything, I welcome it. I'd be happy to put the sources in to the article if you leave them here, but I've been unable to find any myself... HJMitchell You rang? 21:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lets not forget that an actual, published book from a major publisher counts as a reliable source for its own existence (as well as the authors), though it doesnt always establish notability, as that depends on the kind of books, critical response, etc.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not so much my issue as the lack of reliable sources for anything else- for example, the article says he was born in 1951 (no date) but there's no source for that simplest of pieces of information. It would be nice to see a source for something more than "he was born in 1951, bumped into Quentin Blake one day then decided to write a book". HJMitchell You rang? 04:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC) Garibaldi Baconfat 19:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Farid Khavari

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

The subject is a candidate for a future election, but not a very notable one--without running for office he wouldn't qualify, and that run is a ways away. Drmies (talk) 07:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is notable as an author. See this search at Worldcat. His book Environomics : the economics of environmentally safe prosperity according to http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/26929914&referer=brief_results is held by 271 libraries and was reviewed in the scholarly journal '"Economic Geography Oct., 1994, vol. 70, no. 4, p. 427-429. His book Oil and Islam : the ticking bomb according to http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/22954128 is held by 165 libraries. His book Vultures : doctors, lawyers, hospitals, and insurance companies : what's wrong, and what to do about it according to http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/21949457 is held by 77 libraries.

There is older coverage (circa 1991) of him and his family in the context of the persecution of Baha'is in Iran at this article and other articles that can be found at this search. I do not regard this coverage as a proof of his notability, but perhaps it establishes notability for his mother and father. (I agree that in this case notability is not inherited.) It is not clear whether he is a Baha'i, so I have not mentioned that it the article. There are a few hits for him at Google Scholar, but probably not enough to pass WP:PROF.

His proposal that the State of Florida establish its own bank may attract broader public interest, even if he fails to be elected. But my overall feeling is that his work as an author makes him notable. - Eastmain (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Eastmain, do you care to add that information to the article and trimming/editing it so that the text reflects what he is notable for? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an author, with thanks to Eastmain. DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is an author, the article should be kept. I also agree with Eastmain about the state-bank idea making him noteworthy as well. Grma09 (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven (novel)

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

Trivially short unsourced article, deprodded without any rationale given. Jclemens (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per the rationale that I included in the PROD tag. ╟─Treasury Tag►constablewick─╢ 12:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [69], [70] (use to be a magazine in the 1990s), [71], and [72]. Joe Chill (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GNews search turns up multiple newspaper reviews satisfying GNG, also has nontrivil GBooks hits. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per citations provided by JoeChill, appears to satisfy notability guidelines. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ektron

AfDs for this article:

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

Promotion for non-notable company; given sources are non-significant, and I was only able to find press release coverage when searching. Haakon (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this may meet WP:COMPANY. This source is already in the article, and it looks like significant coverage to me. This also is worth looking at. And this press release puts forth a strong claim to notability, as a third-party magazine has included the company in a list of "Top 100 Companies That Matter Most" just last month. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see nothing but press releases. Yawn. JBsupreme (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All references are self posted (cmswire references are paid news releases, they are not trusted 3rd party coverage as required by policy). Frivolous coverage and braggy (has more than.. employs over.. flagship.. unreferenced promotional statements). Delete as per WP:N and WP:Spam - --DustyRain (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as it fails WP:SPAM. This article makes no claim to notability in accordance with either WP:WEB or WP:CORP, nor is there any significant coverage to support such a claim. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lacking coverage and content. NJA (t/c) 10:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MathScriptor

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

I can't find significant coverage in secondary sources for this software. There's a Lulu.com book by the software's author, but that's essentially self-pub; I'd give it some weight if it were written by someone else. In its defense, it a appears to be used at a few universities, so I didn't just prod it. The article is a bit promotional given the WP:OR matrix comparing it with established software of this kind. Pcap ping 00:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 00:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe a slight vanity tinge to this, but used at a major university apparently, and available for general use. Not reason to delete. LotLE×talk 20:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- COI! You are a Lulu too! ;-) Pcap ping 20:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources provided. Intro paragraph is spammy, providing download links. Miami33139 (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 07:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soil Quality Hypothesis

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

This term could apply to a variety of hypothesese related to soil quality. A search 1 does not reveal that the definition given here is more notable than any other. Indeed a more specific search yields no results at all 2 Pontificalibus (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable hypothesis as the nom describes, and if for some reason retained this should certainly be moved to something like Sokoloff-Engerman soil quality hypothesis. However, to the extent this is of significance it is already adequately covered at Stanley Engerman#Research with Kenneth L. Sokoloff. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, User:Glenfarclas is actually being generous, this hypothesis has no play or even mentions in reliable sources. Abductive (reasoning) 04:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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