Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 19

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 18 June 20 June >

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jo Jan Paul Peñol

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

A 20-year old city councilor of Pavia, Iloilo, Philippines. Only reference is to his blog site. Currently a student at Central Philippine University where he was the managing editor of the student newspaper. Claims to have written a book, Leadership Next, but unable to find information about it. This is a clearly a case of too soon. I wouldn't want to be one of his future political opponents. Bgwhite (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Bgwhite (talk) 00:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge without redirect. I didn't leave a redirect behind because I can safely guarantee nobody will ever type in that exact term. m.o.p 03:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best & Co. (retailer founded 1997)

edit
Best & Co. (retailer founded 1997) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Listing on AfD per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 24. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 13:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Background): :I created this article when I came upon Best & Co., which appeared to include information about two separate chains that happened to share the same name. I moved content about one of the chains to a separate article, which was then speedy-deleted, which I brought to deletion review because, although I have no feelings about whether this chain is notable or not, I felt the deletion was out of the bounds of the speedy-delete process. While the review was happening, I had a series of very unpleasant interactions with another user (at Talk:Best & Co. and our respective user pages) who chose to launch unfounded and hostile accusations at me rather than discuss the article issues. This user eventually came into the deletion review and, in the midst of ranting about how awful I am, pointed out then (for the first time) that the logo of the 1997 company, which I had missed before, did indicate that it was a continuation of the older company, which would have satisfied me at any point that combining the two companies into one article was in fact justified, and I stated such. Since I had already indicated (whether or not anyone chose to observe it) my desire to close the deletion review, from this point on I withdrew from and ignored all discussions of either of the Best & Co. articles, rather than futilely continue to pursue activities that were alternately frustrating or explicitly insulting. I don't know how or why the delrev led to this AFD, I have no position on whether the article should be deleted, and I will not be watching or following the discussion here. Theoldsparkle (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please resolve the personal disputes elsewhere and stick to the topic at hand? Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. — Logan Talk Contributions 15:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the link to the deletion review log. --Anthem 19:18, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas [1]. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep No reason to delete has been provided. Warden (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This was correctly speedied to begin with, and the article creator acknowledged as much in the DRV, making me wonder why this time-wasting AFD is necessary. It's an inappropriate spinout article for a brand that went dormant and was revived, and all the content came from the main article about the brand, Best & Co., where it remains. There is no "Best & Co - founded 1997". The business press characterizes the current enterprise as the continuation of the original [2], as does the business itself, and the main article treats the enterprise the same way we treat other brands that have gone dormant and then been revived (see Ipana, for example). The rather cranky article creator didn't do adequate research before splitting this article off, and edit warred against multiple users, myself included, to maintain the split. We've all wasted way too much time on this already. It's clearly established, and not disputed, that the article split rested on a mistake, and wasn't justified. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the speedy. It is apparently being contested in good faith, and we should wait for a community decision. It's the on;ly definitive way. DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 05:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's got nothing to do with the issue here, nobody argues that the company/brand isn't notable. This is the same company/brand already covered, in greater detail, at Best & Co.; that's why the second source you added describes the company has having been founded in 1879, an odd assertion to have in article about a company "founded 1997" as the title here would have it. This article began its misspent life as an inappropriate content fork, and subsequent discussion only reinforces that point. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Ah, there is the confusion then... they should be merged (okay, not too much content will be saved from the 1997 article...), and this should not be an afd. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- DQ (t) (e) 23:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cards Against Humanity

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

No evidence of notability. Dmol (talk) 23:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment. More participation from experienced editors is needed here. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? I'm not arguing with deciding to relist, but it seems that in a weeks time, several reasons have been presented that support the merit of this page, and very little has been put forth otherwise. While it is good to have experienced editors oversee, and I believe it is policy to have an experienced member make a deletion decision, the merits of the arguments presented and the level of consensus reached is not dependent on having senior editors involved. With that in mind, this article was nominated for deletion because of lack of notability. Several sources have been cited, perhaps additional ones should be searched out. Do the current sources, overall, seem to satisfy the requirements for reliable sources? Seems to me, at worst, this article is of "unclear notability" at the moment, and according to guidelines "deletion should be a last resort." Since the only option for merging this article would be as a subsection of Apples to Apples, which I imagine most would not fin appropriate, I again fall back on a vote of *Keep*. RickO5 (talk) 08:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, why? Last week I added several what I believe to be reliable sources (Thrillist and The Onion AV Club, both of which have their own Wikipedia pages) that I think thoroughly address the issue of notability. Although I am not a regular contributor (except for the occasional fixing of typos anonymously), as a kickstarter backer of CAH, I decided to finally register on Wikipedia to help this article. I'd like to hear again from people who thought that the original version of this article was not notable if they still think that. HyperfineCosmologist (talk) 13:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I take it from the appeal for experienced editors that administrator Ritzman is uncomfortable ruling "Keep" on a new product sourced and sourceable only to blogs and one review by the Chicago Tribune. It is indeed very borderline in terms of sourcing, that I will grant. However, the open-source aspect of the game makes it noteworthy, in my estimation, and it does not seem that there are any lack of less-than-stellar sources that provide verifiability. My critique is that the piece is a little bit spammy and that should be fixed, but this seems a TAG FOR SOURCES KEEP IMPROVE situation to my mind. Carrite (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I relisted it because not only is the sourcing very marginal but aside from Hobit and RickO5, all the keep !votes are from accounts whose only contributions are to the article and this discussion. This is common practice at AFD. As far as your point about lowering the bar a little for verifiable open source projects, I could go for that if the community agrees but that will take more then just this AFD. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for pointing out your reasoning. I had another question for you (and everyone), I don't know the current number of games sold/downloaded, but would a high sales figure help bolster notability? If it sold X number of copies, than at least X number of people found it to be notable enough to purchase, right? I'm just trying to think of other ways to assess notability, as I imagine web sources have been exhausted, and new board games, unless overwhelmingly notable or controversial, don't usually find there way into the Sunday post.RickO5 (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Open Teradata Viewer

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

Unremarkable software that fails WP:GNG. I declined the db-web because althought it is written is Java, this is not a web based software. Article does not explain the significance of the software and no sources are provided. I cannot see how this software is distinguishable from any other database management software. v/r - TP 22:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Flemish American Football League. Unfortunately, I can't find enough material to evidence this team's notability, but outright deletion isn't necessary when a redirect is possible. If they garner attention in the future, an independent article can be re-created. m.o.p 03:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bornem Titans

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

Contested prod. Fails WP:N, hasn't receieved significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. Even het Nieuwsblad, which devotes lots of attention to even minor sports in Flanders, has only mentioned the team twice in passing and never devoted significant attention to it[5]. This is an amateur team for a sport with very limited popularity in Belgium. Looking through Google[6] reveals no other good sources. Fram (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Titans are a member of the Belgium Football League, the highest level American style football league in the country. The Chicago Bandits don't get a lot of coverage, because the Chicago Bears, Chicago Bulls, and Chicago Cubs are more popular sports. This team participates at a national level, therefore they should be kept. --Tbennert (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same argumant as Tbennert. Also, because the sport doesn't get a lot of media attention it does not have a lot of sponsors, the sport in belgian is fully based on volunteer work. So keeping a website online just for historic results is expensive. I volunteered to put al records on wikipedia with as much references to newspaper articles, etc, to make it reliable material on wikipedia. Giving the people information and knowledge through wikipedia is what wikipedia is all about, not just the popular sports but all sports. Arkangel lucifer (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a "free web hosting server" and if this is indeed original research by policy it must be deleted.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the second keep opinion canvassed the first keep opinion: [7]. Fram (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.football-aktuell.de this is an independent source, German site about american football in europa, no way connected to the belgian league. also they got some media coverage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBtuG9yIPmg Arkangel lucifer (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also the sport is recognised by the government: http://www.topsportvlaanderen.be Arkangel lucifer (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
YouTube, I'm afraid, doesn't count as it is notoriously unreliable. The other sources are in a language that I do not comprehend, which makes it difficult for use in an English-language encyclopedia (not sure if there is a policy on this or not). However, the article could well be a candidate for one of the other language projects.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sources may be in any language, that doesn't make any difference. But that a sport federation is recognised by the government doesn't make any of the teams more notable, and that a specialist website sometimes has attention for it doesn't help either, and I couldn't find any articles that were really about the Titans there either (a few articles mentioning them when reveiwing the competition, that seems to be it). Fram (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep As Secretary/Board member of the Bornem Titans club and board member of Flemisch and Belgian League, I would like to support this page. Allthough You are right that A.Football is not that wide spread in Belgium, it still is an international recognized sport. Therefore there should be at least be the posibility to create the necessary info on Wiki about the teams in First dvivision. There are 2 regional competitions (Flemisch and Wallonian) and the highest ranked teams go into Belgian Playoffs and Belgian Bowl final. The Bornem Titans were 2 out of the 3 last years in the playoffs so not the smallest team in the league too. For closure I would like to point out that it is this kind of information (independant Wikipedia) wich is very important for our sport to get that growth and wider support. Thank you for your understanding. Please do not hesitate to contact me ([email protected]) for any official information about American Football in Belgium. HansDeLeenheer (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 22:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wait, before you lynch me - read below.

I've prepared a summary of rationales presented below, discounting obviously-canvassed opinions and single-purpose accounts. I've also discounted improper rationale such as 'content is interesting' and 'I've decided to assert that this is(n't) notable, but I'm not going to share any further reasoning with you, closing admin.'

Keep:

  • Subject is notable within a narrow field - naturally, widespread independent sourcing will be hard to find, but this is not necessary
  • Article needs work, but has sufficient reliable coverage to maintain verifiability and notability

Delete:

  • Subject is only notable within a narrow field - due to the lack of widespread independent sourcing, article is not viable
  • Sources with ties to the subject cannot be used as primaries

This is an incredibly-compounded version of the dozens of arguments I just spent twenty minutes reading through. Again, people saying "it is/isn't notable/interesting" and "first AFD was wrong/right" - while your participation is appreciated, I don't get much from your assertion, as I am still working on the technology necessary to read your mind.

While it comes pretty close, consensus leans towards delete - unfortunately, while Natami clearly has its supporters, stronger sources are needed to support a stand-alone article. I agree that a merge would be the best idea - if anyone would like, I can pull up a copy of the article for inclusion in the main Amiga article.

I understand this decisions isn't going to be popular with some people (heck, any close is guaranteed to disappoint half of you), but please understand that this is an unbiased close. I'm only going off consensus and policy.

I'd like to commend everyone for (mostly) keeping a cool head. If there are any concerns regarding my close that I haven't addressed, click on my signature to tell me. Cheers, m.o.p 04:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Natami

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

Relisting debate per appeals via email and on my talk page. Original AfD had a problem with WP:CANVASS and single purpose accounts. Original AfD rationale is "The article does not meet WP:N. It has two references to Natami's vendor, which cannot evidence notability as they are not independent of the subject and its creator. The further reading section has a link to a personal website, which is does not meet WP:RS. Google Web returns 373 results for "Natami" AND Amiga -wiki -wikipedia -blog -forum; and limiting the results to English, there are 299. Most of the results appear to be irrelevant (they are Wikipedia mirrors or about something else) and the relevant results do not meet WP:RS." by User:Rilak. I am neutralI was originally neutral as I was uninvolved in the subject and weighing community consensus. Having participated now in the AFD, I now have an opinion and that is to Delete. v/r - TP 22:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete : My opinion has not changed on this, for me the very first line of the article says a lot "NatAmi (short for Native Amiga, is an unreleased Amiga clone motherboard)" in that until it actually gets released it is unlikely to get the significant coverage in reliable sources that demonstrate notability. WP is an encyclopaedia, it is not a forum for collating fancruft. The first close was correct, admins who make such calls should be supported, WP:N is clear on this, the article needs coverage from sources that are both reliable and independent of the subject. That said I see no bar to re-creation once it has gone on sale and it has received significant coverage independent of the subject has been received. Mtking (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite interesting to see your obsession with deletions, and the comments about your behavior in that regard on your talk page. Perhaps you're not the person one should consider most reliable when it comes to evaluating if a deletion was correct or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.120.146 (talk) 11:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC) — 217.150.120.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Explanation Demanded His Royal Majestic Highness Rilak has issued a decree that Amiga Future magazine is not a reliable source and cannot be quoted in Wikipedia. His "reasoning" excludes every Amiga magazine that ever existed or ever will exist. So my question is: What Amiga magazine is allowed to be quoted on Wikipedia? I want a list. Or is it true as people say, that Wikipedia has no actual rules and applies wildly different standards to each individual article? I demand a list of Amiga magazines that are considered "reliable sources" by wikipedia so that I may make proper edits using only reliable sources. I am neutral. 108.12.101.22 (talk) 04:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)— 108.12.101.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
I pass no judgment on if "Amiga Future magazine" is a WP:RS but what is very clear is that it is not sufficiently independent from the project to be used to judge the notability of that subject. Mtking (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is it "very clear" that Amiga future is not sufficiently independent from the project to be used to judge notability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.150.120.146 (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC) — 217.150.120.146 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • You have a very interesting idea of what constitutes proof. So you want to close this now on the basis of statements from one person that you consider proof of the motivations of everyone objecting to your point of view, while it at the same time holding those opposing you to a far higher standard. Says it all, really.
  • Your blatant personal attack against me pretty much proves that you are not neutral. Do not accuse me of "appealing the deletion" of Natami article. I have never appealed the deletion of anything ever. Unlike you, I am neutral. I don't care if this article gets deleted or not. I simply care if rules are followed. Or if rules even exist in the first place. I notice that you wrote quite a lot of words without answering the question: Which Amiga magazines are reliable sources according to your rules? Which Amiga magazines are allowed to be quoted on wikipedia? We the editors have a right to know. 108.12.101.22 (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)— 108.12.101.22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Hmmm - I answered your question, now stop badgering others please. Mtking (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Mtking, The article was edited If your personal judgement is to delete the Natami Article due to the fact that the original contributor wrote an unfortunate first line, it seems me quite odd.
This was the original phrase:
"NatAmi (short for ''Native Amiga'', is an unreleased Amiga clone motherboard)"
Then I want to inform you that I edited the phrase of the previous contributor to a more accetable form:
'''NatAmi''' (short for ''Native Amiga''), is the name of an ongoing hardware project,
Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 14:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As the nominator in the first AfD, I found no coverage in reliable sources. During the course of the AfD, no coverage in reliable sources was presented. As of now, I see no reliable sources presented. WP:N is crystal clear that the basic criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources (the other criteria are concerned with whether the article is encyclopedic or not). This article fails to meet it, and continues to meet it. The appeals to the closing administrator via E-mail and the talk page, unless they specifically addressing the issue from Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, do not warrant the recreation and relisting of an article deleted through consensus. What is there to discuss? Are there suddenly reliable sources available? No, there aren't any. Was there a credible serious flaw in the discussions in the AfD? No, "You deleted something I like," is not an argument. I am unsure as to the policies and guidelines regarding appeals to deletions in these circumstances (as I am not an administrator), but I would suggest speedy delete be considered. To recreate a deleted article, which is essentially the same as the deleted version, for no reason other than because a few people aren't happy with its deletion, and to require that those in favor of deletion somehow rebut complaints instead of arguments, will effectively and perpetually prevent any article from being deleted. Rilak (talk) 04:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May I recommend you have a read of WP:ITSINTERESTING. Mtking (talk) 10:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why are people asking for its deletion? Natami is 100% notable. There are videos on YouTube, interviews, documentation, benchmarks, and so on. 150.204.51.181 (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)— 150.204.51.181 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • If that is a rhetorical question, then belittling those in favor of deletion by implying that the topic is so well known that thinking of deleting it justifiably invokes surprise is not a good idea since it does not evidence notability per WP:N (and neither does asserting that the topic is "100% notable"). If that is not a rhetorical question, people are asking that this article be deleted because one of the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia (WP:N) is that the topic must have received significant coverage in multiple independent and reliable secondary sources. In the context of this discussion, videos on YouTube about the Natami are either primary sources (if produced by the creator of the topic, or those affiliated with it) or are not reliable sources (if produced by fans, for example) because it is a self-published source. Regarding interviews, these can be evidence of notability, but only if they are published by a reliable source. The interviews presented so far are not published in reliable sources, but at fansites. Regarding documentation, these are primary sources, and thus fail the requirement of being secondary sources. Regarding benchmarks, these can be evidence for notability, but like interviews, they need to be published in reliable sources. Rilak (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please check the translation. That is trivial coverage. Mere mentions of NatAmi.--v/r - TP 13:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to check the translation because it's my native language. If you want more, here: IDG is publishing every news about Natami which appeared on PPA:

GL1zdA (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • IDG is not publishing news about the Natami, IDG is running an indiscriminate news aggregate that finds news stories about the Natami from the Web. The links are not to IDG websites too. The http://fider.idg.pl/ news aggregate is not even discriminate as to what news it indexes, given that some of the links are about road construction and wrestling competitions. You might as well claim that Google is publishing news stories about the Natami because their web crawlers are indexing Natami news from Amiga fansites, and are providing short summaries of them and links to them. Rilak (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a webcrawler nor a search engine. It's aggregates news in the same way PR Newswire aggregates press releases. You can't publish there arbitrary news, you have to be approved by them. It gathers information from selected sources of the Polish Internet, not only computer related news (that's why you have links about road construction and wrestling competitions).GL1zdA (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence to support the claim that IDG is selective in its news aggregation activities? Rilak (talk) 06:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the left you have a list of those, whose content appears there. You won't find news outside of this list. 82.210.134.153 (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant "selective" as in "IDG staff putting everything posted by the websites in the list through editorial review before adding links to them" not as in "we only add links to some sites". Rilak (talk) 06:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These sites where verified by them. You can't just send your rss address and spam them and you get removed if you abuse the service. If IDG trusts PPA I don't see a reason why it shouldn't be a reliable source for w wikipedia article.
This is what you call evidence? How is one supposed to verify the truthfulness of your claims? It is not obvious to me (and likely everyone else) where these claims are coming from. I noticed no statements or links on the IDG page that provide insight into whether scrutiny has gone into selecting the links in question. How about something like a link to an IDG web page that states IDG performs editorial judgment? Rilak (talk) 05:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can try to add a website yourself http://fider.idg.pl/formularz.asp?opcja=1 and see if it will be approved to the 'IT pages' category. If you need further proof you can always mail them about their policies: http://www.idg.pl/info_kontakt.html .GL1zdA (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what you are really saying is that you can't provide any evidence for your claims, correct? And then you tell me to contact IDG for comment on the nature of their Fider feature. I'm not going to do that. It is possible that I could fabricate a response favorable to my position. The same possibility also applies to every other person and group. I consider the matter settled: the IDG Fider is not a RS. Although appearances can be deceiving, it really does look like IDG is indiscriminately aggregating news from a number of sources, likely with a bit of selectivity such as news from producers from a certain region. Other than that, there is no evidence on IDG's website that they review what they link to. All claims to the contrary cannot be substantiated. Rilak (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The reliability and origin of the sources used are entirely appropriate for the narrow scope and non-extraordinary claims being made in this article. I'm amused to see that the Amiga fans are still hard at it, I have no idea why they are, but good luck to them. I wouldn't expect to see this covered in Spectrum, I would expect to see it in the Amiga community sources that have done so. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think anyone here is demanding that there be something like a two-page spread in the largest general-audience publication in order for this topic to be considered notable. But whatever coverage is presented here as evidence of notability nevertheless needs to meet WP:N, WP:RS, and any other relevant policy or guideline that WP:N and WP:RS deems relevant. Why should this particular topic be exempt? Rilak (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No one has written that this topic should be exempt, but you can't say of every source that it's not reliable only because it's not a PhD thesis or article published in NY Times. You can't say that sources which are specializing in a narrow field are not reliable because in *your opinion* they are to narrow.GL1zdA (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No one has written that this topic should be exempt from WP:N and WP:RS? My interpretation of Andy's last sentence is that the standards should be loosened so that "Amiga community sources" can be deemed acceptable because that's the best coverage this topic can muster. It could be said that Andy was a bit ambiguous as what "Amiga community sources" and Spectrum refers to (IEEE Spectrum is the first thing that comes to my mind) is unclear, but given that the sources presented in the first AfD were mostly fansites and blogs, it is reasonable to think that these sources are the "Amiga community sources". Without further comment from Andy, all of this should not be seen as conclusive, but it is certainly reasonable to respond such comments in a manner that leaves the opportunity of clarification open. Lastly, I didn't say that specialized publications are not reliable because their scope is narrow. I would very much like a diff that supports your claim to the contrary. Your portrayal of my reasons for rejecting of the sources in question is either mistaken or a deliberate misrepresentation in an attempt to discredit them. Just so we are clear, I am saying that the specialized publications and coverage presented so far are not reliable because most of them are published by fans in non-professional circumstances, circumstances that won't meet WP:RS, not because they are narrow in scope or audience. Rilak (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentArticle edited and other sources were found to keep Natami article alive. Hello people at Wikipedia. I impoved again the article and inscribed Natami in the phenomenon of Home computer remake and retrogaming with more precision, removing some unwanted words that could make it resemble fancruft speaking.

More: I found an italian historic site that reports all the major remake homebrew efforts of the last years (natami is just cited once, but the presence in that site confirms my assumptions that natami belongs to that home computer remakes criteria. Also it confirms that my preamble into Natami article philosophy section regarding homebrew computers was not just "Original Work" and my personal POV. "Homebrew remakes" are an interesting emerging phenomenon amongst hobbyists.) ComputerHistory.it.

Also I found an interview with one of the Natami Developers on the pages of a Retrocomputing site in Poland Interwiew on Retroage site. This site is not related with Amiga. It a site dedicated to Retrocomputing as a more wide topic, and they spotted the Natami project, so they check the ongoing of the project by interviewing one of the developers.

Also some days ago (june 15) French Amiga Online Magazine Obligement interviewed a young developer who is involved into AmigaOS 4 and perhaps into Natami Project too: Interview on Obligement site. This article makes Obligement leading the "Further reading" section of Natami article being present twice in the list. With respect, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • P.S.: As a contributor am I entitled to vote to keep the article, or voting for deleting/keeping is a privilege of Wikipedia Moderators only? Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding the reliability of Obligement, this publication claims that it is a fanzine so it is not a reliable source. This has already been mentioned in the first AfD.[9]. Rilak (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding the reliability of www.computerhistory.it, the website's own about page (http://www.computerhistory.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13&Itemid=82), states

        "Who are
        I'm a fan of retrocomputing that for years he devoted himself to the study of old machines and as a result of the history of computing.
        In this site I have gathered the results of my research.
        Legal
        ComputerHistory.it amateur is a product of information is not periodic, non-commercial and non-professional. This site is not a news organization and is updated without any periodicity, at the discretion of its author. Therefore, it can not be considered in any way as an editorial product under Law No 62 of 7.03.2001."

        (translated via Google Translate). This is conclusively a self-published, personal website detailing the amateur (as in not paid) historian research of a fan and is therefore not a reliable source. Rilak (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Computer History italian site is a site collecting information about the history of computers from an italian point of view. It is maintained by an amateur but is collecting reliable infos and testimonies about italian side of computer history, and it publish also the reliable contributions of any people who want to partecipate the collecting of infos. Wikipedia also is maintaned by amateurs and organized to collect infos provided by external contributors in the same way of Computer History. The difference is that Wikipewdia is not maintaned by a single person and people can contribute directly. So what?
        • Mr. Rilak, you are so quick to find quotes to diminish the reliability of a site, so you will apprecciate the Computer History Mission Statement declaration, whose principles are very solid (http://www.computerhistory.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=43:benvenuti-su-computerhistoryit&catid=32:varie):

          "To give a future to our past
          On the net there are many resources on the history of computing, unfortunately mostly in English and Italian with little information on the computers. This site aims to fill this gap by documenting the history of computing with a particular interest in Italian.
          Can not miss the technical content such as descriptions of machines and technologies of the past. But the intent is to go further and provide an overview of the evolution of computing and the history of the companies that participated in this revolution.
          The site collects the results of own research of its webmaster, but it is open to everyone Voglino to contribute articles or photos or documents providing useful to the development of the site.
          If you have photos, manuals, advertising, software or hardware related to computers first Italian contattetemi!"

          (translated via Google Translate)
        • Also the vaste majority of Computer Museums are maintained by amateurs and not maintained periodically, want you to deprecate any information provided by these online museums?
        • And more, the definition of amateurish site in Italy is a disclaimer to avoid to be obliged to hire one professional journalist (in Italy are professionals only those who are registered in the Official Book of Journalists) as being "director responsible under the law" for the site itself. Also it is required that the maintainer is obliged to register the site as a real printed newspaper under Italian Law about Publishing Press (it requires to be enlisted in the list of printed publications in the nearest Local Court of Justice in Italy Legge n. 47 del 1948 -legge sulla stampa-). Giornale Online on Italian Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Regarding the argument in the first paragraph, the comparisons to Wikipedia are invalid because Wikipedia is not a reliable source (this shouldn't be an unknown fact). Regarding the argument in the second paragraph, appreciation of the site's goals and "principles" (from the context of your argument, I think a better word is "honor" or "morality") is irrelevant to the question of reliability. Determining reliability (or the lack of) is not about finding nice things (or bad things) to say about a source: "Mr. Smith was always such a nice teacher who gave his all to help his students," means absolutely nothing at all when it comes to arguing that Mr. Smith is a reliable source. Likewise, "Mr. Anderson is mean," does not go towards in an argument that he is an unreliable source. Regarding the argument that because most computer history museums are run by amateurs, they should be considered reliable, otherwise a large number of sources would be rejected: This does not go towards indicating whether the site in question is reliable or not. The argument really sounds like, "You're being mean, so deem these sources reliable so you don't hurt their feelings." Regarding your final paragraph, you conveniently ignore the fact that the owner of the site in question stated that he was an amateur before the legal disclaimer. Rilak (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding retrorage.net, it is interesting to note that when I attempted to view what I think are forum posts that describe the site linked to from http://www.retroage.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=21&id=79&Itemid=204, registration was required. This looks like a fansite, an unreliable source. How many professional news sites or magazines require one to register in order to find out what the site or magazine is? Rilak (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Disregard the above, the requirement to register was a temporary server issue. Rilak (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Regarding retrorage.net, there is no indication that it is published under the conditions required by WP:N and WP:RS. The five pages found under http://www.retroage.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=21&id=79&Itemid=204 do not describe precisely what the site is. There is no mention of publisher, of a paid professional editorial staff, nothing. Rilak (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no requirement for a reliable source to have paid staff on WP:RS.GL1zdA (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:RS does not require that a publication have a paid professional staff. But WP:RS#Overview says "The following specific examples [the contents of WP:RS] cover only some of the possible types of reliable sources and source reliability issues, and are not intended to be exhaustive. Proper sourcing always depends on context; common sense and editorial judgment are an indispensable part of the process." Do you really think that a site that does not even unambiguously say what it is indicates reliability? Do you think that a site that does not even say whether its run by fans or by a publisher/media company is indicative of reliability? Do you think that not even disclosing who (as in fan, professional journalist, or scholar, not as in the names of the authors) writes the site content goes towards reliability? I don't. If a source does not present any information about itself, so that as a result nobody can examine the information to determine how reliable it is, is it not reasonable to deem it unreliable due to insufficient evidence? Rilak (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think this article is notable enough, only that it is missing a few 3rd-party references, but it seems those 3rd-party references are hard to find... --Marko75 (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: This was very properly deleted in the first place, and should not have been relisted here; if any of the Keep proponents had a problem with the close, DRV is the proper venue for it.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  19:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marko75 3rd party references are increasing step by step, as long as Natami has now being complete, and it is expected soon a release for common users. As shown by the links I found, the actual interest of 3rd party sites is focused on interviewing the authors and developers of Natami. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at the first AfD, I think there needs to be clarification in regards to the role third-party sources have. When it comes to determining notability, coverage in third-party references are not the only consideration; that is, by itself, the property of being independent of the topic (third-party) is no enough. WP:N requires the third-party references to be reliable sources as well; and the basic criteria for determining that is WP:RS. Rilak (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The Natami article is functional to keep a more wide coverage on Wikipedia about the phenomenon of Homebuilt computer and Home computer remake. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 18:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: NatAmi is recognizable even by computer hardware stores and therefore complies with WP:N - [10] Besides user Rilak is not neutral because of his engagement in promoting competitive hardware solutions like PPC processors. PA-SEMI processors are crucial part of competitive to NatAmi, AmigaOne X1000 system by A-EON. This clearly constitutes a bias and it is unacceptable. Thus will be reported.LordBanter (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)— LordBanter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. v/r - TP 19:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How does being sold (I assume this is what "recognizable computer hardware stores" means) by a computer hardware store satisfy WP:N's requirement for the topic to have been covered non-trivially by multiple independent, reliable secondary sources? And what evidence do you have for your ad hominem assertion that I am not neutral because I am promoting PPC-based Natami competitors? In the last AfD, I was portrayed as someone full of Amiga hate. Now I am involved in the Amiga business? Sorry, but that does not compute. Rilak (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - complies with WP:N. I dont see why it was deleted in its first AfD.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (I am re-pasting my opinion from the original AfD, as it has not changed, as well as a followup comment I wrote in the original discussion...unsure why this went straight back online and not to DRV, but here we go again) merge any verifiable content to the Amiga article's hardware clones section. Total lack of reliable sources, and while I, as a geek, have considerable sympathy for the outpouring ofWP:ILIKEIT-style arguments above, they are not in any way good arguments for inclusion. The "Obligement" source is the closest thing we have to a passable source but I can't find any evidence on the site that it would pass muster as a reliable source, per therelevant guidelines. Micro Mart might suffice as a reliable source if anyone could produce the alleged coverage and if it is significant, independent, etc. I note that a search for "Natami" on Micro Mart's website produces zero results, although I do know that that does not necessarily mean that they have never featured this product in print.

    Regarding AmigaFuture, I think the original reviewing admin said it best regarding whether a publication of such limited scope can actually be used to establish notability. It's certainly verifiable, but...it reminds me of using a local newspaper to demonstrate the local notability of a local politician. Which is to say, it reminds me of something that's not notable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 06:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you basically !voting twice. The point being?--BabbaQ (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Amiga Future, @ ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ Amiga Future reminds you of a Local Newspaper? LOL! When it was based in England, published by an indipendent publisher, it reached even more than 100.000 copies sold (if I remember well) There are in those times Amiga magazines that surpassed the number of 1.000.000 copies sold. Unfortunately the fact Amiga community shrinked, made AFuture selling actually only a few thousand copies (1000? 2000? 3000?), and Amiga community was lucky that a reseller like Vesalia keep the magazine alive by supporting it wit funds. But AFuture is a magazine with a decennal (or more) presence in newspaper stores in all GB (and now in Germany too)and had demonstrated its professionality and indipendence with literally hundreds of critical articles about Amiga products during its long lifetime. You can't judge an editorial product just by consider its actual shrinked community of reference, but only by checking its editorial line by inspecting globally quality of all issues and professionality of articles during all its lifetime. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • @BabbaQ: Uhm, no, I'm voting once. The previous discussion was not moved to this new discussion. @GL1zdA: You'll have to explain that conclusion. That's not what I said at all. @Raffaele: I can definitely judge an editorial product by its "community of reference." ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 23:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How might I ask?--BabbaQ (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge The content of the article meets Wikipedia's verifiability policy, which is the reason we are right back here at AfD again. Sources such as Amiga Future [11] which is a published computer magazine also tends to indicate notability.

    There also appeared to be some confusion that an article published in Amiga Future couldn't be used as a source for the NatAmi Wikipedia article because Amiga Future focuses almost exclusively on "Amiga" topics. This is quite simply not the case and Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline makes this quite clear. If this were the case, we couldn't use MacUser for articles relating to Apple, or Popular Science (or another science journal) for science and technology related articles. Amiga Future is not published by the developers of "NatAmi", so per Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline, Amiga Future very much can be used for the purposes of establishing notability.

    Because the material is verifiable, the only other alternative would be to merge the material in this article into a larger article. One option would be Amiga, however given that we have a number of other articles about other Amiga clone hardware, if we were to merge this material somewhere, it might be best to merge the whole lot of them into a larger article about Amiga clones.

    While I have not personally witnessed the "PPC promotion" by User:Rilak that LordBanter mentions above, I too have to question why exactly it is that Rilak is seemingly obsessed with deleting this article at any cost, including making unsupported statements in the first AfD. This is despite the fact that deletion of verifiable material goes contrary to Wikipedia's deletion policy, Wikipedia's editing policy, and even the instructions for using the articles for deletion process itself. --Tothwolf (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Imagine if we used a Star Trek The Magazine or the Star Trek Encyclopedia to determine notability of The Genesis Project from Star Trek II The Wrath of Kahn? --v/r - TP 22:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying to compare a real object like NatAmi to the Project Genesis fictional subtopic of a well known movie seems a little silly. Although oddly enough, there was once an AfD for Project Genesis (closed as keep) and later independently merged to Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Now, if you want to talk Star Trek in general, then both of your examples can and are used for other Star Trek subtopics for the purposes of Wikipedia's verifiability policy and notability guideline.

    Star Trek: The Magazine, published by Fabbri Publishing (independent of Paramount Studios) is in fact used per WP:V for your very example of Project Genesis [12] and other subtopics in the Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan article. As for The Star Trek Encyclopedia, just to take a handful off the top of the search results: [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]

    Wikipedia's original research policy also explicitly states that tertiary sources, including other encyclopedias, which are reliably published may be used as a reliable source here on Wikipedia. The Star Trek Encyclopedia very much appears to meet those requirements when it comes to the topic of Star Trek.

    Getting back to Amiga Future, that magazine is a reliable secondary source. --Tothwolf (talk) 02:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Despite my fear of getting too far off trek (worst...joke...ever): Star Trek: The Magazine is used to supply verifiable information in those articles, not to function as the solitary foundation for establishing notability of these Star Trek topics, which is what is at issue here. If ST:TM were literally the only arguably reliable third party publication in history to discuss the USS Enterprise, that would indeed be problematic from a notability standpoint.

    I frankly have a bit of a soft spot for wildly geeky stuff like Natami and Amiga evolution projects in general, so I'm more than happy to change my vote, but I have yet to be convinced that Amiga Future can function as the sole foundation for establishment of notability in this case, and all the other sources seem to have been struck down as fanzines, etc. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If you aren't confident that my "assessments" (no connotation to authority intended) of the sources presently described as fanzines (or other fan-created material) are well supported by the facts, you are welcome ask that I elaborate as to how I arrived at that conclusion. Generally, I seek out a site's About page, as well as copyright (generally reliable sources are protective of their content due to the cost that went into producing it; also helpful in evidencing whether the content is published by a publisher), contact (generally reliable sources have staff handling inquiries, and its authors have E-mail addresses hosted by the publication or publisher), and information of this sort. Rilak (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In case it was unclear, I am confident that your assessments are accurate. I've checked them myself. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In the first AfD, and this one, the reliability of a magazine, Amiga Future, is in dispute. In the first AfD, I took a closer look at Amiga Future and its publisher: Link. In later discussions, an editor disputed my arguments by stating that the fact Amiga Future was sponsored by a computer reseller had no bearing on its reliability, specifically its independence from the subject and its creator (despite my argument not covering finances) Link. Because these statements were made in response to my argument that Amiga Future was not reliable due to the nature of its publisher, APC & TCP, I assumed that this editor was referring to APC & TCP as the "computer reseller". I was wrong to assume. In light of new information Link, it appears that Amiga Future is sponsored by Vesalia (http://www.vesalia.de/), a German company that describes itself as, "Your Amiga shop since 1987," (top right hand corner of its home page). Vesalia also happens to offer the NatAmi at its online shop: [21]. The argument that Amiga Future is not independent, given its direct commercial links to an Amiga reseller that is offering the NatAmi has just gotten stronger. This, combined with the nature of APC & TCP (discussed in the first AfD), reaffirms my position that Amiga Future is not a reliable source capable of supporting the notability of Natami. Rilak (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow Rilak, talk about reaching...

      We don't consider publications unreliable because of who happens to buy an ad placement or carry a particular publication in their place of business or online store. This would be like arguing that Macworld is an unreliable source for an article about the latest version of Mac OS X or the latest generation of Macintosh computer because Apple buys ad placements in the magazine and carries the magazine in their retail Apple Store locations.

      Further, you also can't go back and claim that Amiga Future magazine which has been published for far longer than NatAmi has existed is now an unreliable source for Amiga topics because an Amiga retailer which plans to eventually sell NatAmi happens to buys ad placements in the publication and carries it in their online store. I see some other books and publications in their online store, too [22] would you also try to claim these are unreliable for use as a source on Wikipedia as well?

      As before Rilak, you are still making claims which are not backed up by policy and you just can't seem to stand that someone was able to prove you wrong. See WP:STICK and as I said in the last AfD, put on some damned clothes! --Tothwolf (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your analogies still seem a bit wonky to me. If Veselia is essentially keeping Amiga Future in business by "sponsoring" it, that's quite different from Apple buying ad space in Macworld (which certainly doesn't need Apple's ad dollars to continue operations). That said, we don't really know the nature of Veselia and Amiga Future's relationship (this information is coming entirely from one Keep voting participant in this AfD), and I'm inclined to give the publication the benefit of the doubt in this case. Not that that addresses my concerns, or TP's, or several others'.

Also -- and this is my personal opinion, take it or leave it -- I think you should reconsider continuing to toss barbs at Rilak as you do in your last paragraph. You're not quite being uncivil, but your comments seem, to me, to be designed to get a rise out of him, and they don't have much to do with your other arguments (which are well-taken, even if I don't entirely agree with them). Saying "you just can't seem to stand that someone was able to prove you wrong," for example, is clearly unnecessary and flirts with being an assumption of bad faith. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but after I caught Rilak repeatedly outright making things up in the last AfD and now with his continued behaviour here, I'm going to call him out for it. As many, many others have previously said, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. I think KillerChihuahua probably said it best: "We assume good faith absent evidence to the contrary. Once that evidence appears, it is not a failure of AGF to point out failings or misdeeds; rather, it is a failing of common sense not to do so. [...]" WP:AGF itself also states: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary" I'm known for being pretty blunt when it comes to cases such as this, so I'll make no apologies for being blunt with Rilak while calling him out for making false and misleading statements. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I am saying Amiga Future is a reliable source to determine notability; but for a moment let's assume everyone agrees it is. Isn't the criteria for WP:GNG multiple significant reliable sources? We have yet to see anything else greater than mere mentions in any other source that isn't a forum, blog, ect.--v/r - TP 17:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:13, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, the first AfD was closed as "delete", which wasn't the best solution given what I pointed out since we can still merge this material elsewhere. A no consensus close on the other hand would have allowed a merge discussion to take place on a talk page but that wasn't how it was closed.

As for the specific wording of the notability guideline, that's actually an interesting point, and something with which I'm pretty up to date on. The short version is that in many cases where we have a single reliable source which is very strong (ie, detailed coverage, not just a few sentences) we don't need more than one reliable source for the purposes of notability guideline. That said, in many cases we often absolutely do need more than one reliable source for the purposes of verifiability.

The current wording of the notability guideline is fairly recent compared with how long the original wording was present. It was changed mid-discussion with the larger discussion stalled and in limbo after Gavin.collins began pushing his view of "list notability" (and other strong opinions on "notability" which later led to his community ban). It was never revisited after the battles and other disruption from Gavin.collins and the RFC on lists which helped clarify the "list notability" issue.

While the current wording is still less than ideal because it can be interpreted in the way in which you described, the old wording wasn't exactly ideal either... The long standing wording was (or had been similar to): "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." [23] and had been changed to: "More than one secondary source is generally required to provide verifiable evidence that an article topic can meet the requirements of Wikipedia's content policies." [24] This was reverted back to the long standing version [25] changed to "required" [26] changed by yet another editor to "expected" [27] changed by Gavin.collins to something radically different [28] (which was then reverted [29]) and it has remained as "expected" during/since the Gavin.collins mess. A check of the edit history will show just how disruptive the "discussions" with Gavin.collins were. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how that pertains to this AfD, especially considering that the reliability of your source to establish notability is in dispute. A single source can be used for WP:V. Why don't we bring the source in question to the reliable sources noticeboard for discussion? If you like that idea, I'm happy to WP:AGF on your part to open the discussion; or I can do it if you'd like.--v/r - TP 01:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't clear. Generally when we have enough material for a standalone article, we need more than one reliable source in order to make sure all of the material meets the verifiability policy. This is what people were trying to make clear in the notability guideline changes I mentioned above. As for the notability issue itself, well...you brought it up, and I answered (which unfortunately didn't have a simple answer). ;)

I don't mind if someone brings up Amiga Future on WP:RS/N, as long as it is done in a neutral manner (as in "Is this publication a reliable source?"). I was actually considering doing this myself but hadn't had a chance to do so just yet, so if you want to do it, go for it. We really should see if we can find someone who can read German who can look into this further too. I'm pretty sure there is more material out there that we just haven't located yet. --Tothwolf (talk) 01:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of multiple reliable sources appears to be moot now with the addition of another reliable source to the article by Smallman12q. While this news article is in Russian it is still reliable (about) and we don't limit sources to English only. --Tothwolf (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a real project, with a real working board, and there is coverage in RS. Smallman12q (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: appears to be no sources (either in the article or discernible from Google News or Books) from outside the Amiga enthusiast community, so no indication of notability. Even ignoring this point, the article is poorly sourced and dominated by a WP:INDISCRIMINATEly detailed 'Specifications' section. (I would also question why this article was renominated without first going through WP:DRV). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because several editors followed the instructions at WP:DRV which includes discussing with the closing administrator first. The closing administrator agreed to relist because of the perception that the rationale was based on an opinion of the strength of a source.--v/r - TP 15:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hrafn, actually, there are mainstream sources, including the one Smallman12q added to the article, [30] (in Russian) which I noted just above your comment. --Tothwolf (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Новый Регион/'New Region' coverage appears very short and superficial -- the sort of coverage you'd expect from a mere summarising/paraphrasing of project blurbs.HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look superficial to me. They give the project as much coverage as I would expect to see from an English source such as Wired and certainly as much as would have been given by a program such as Computer Chronicles or similar. They also cover quite a lot of technology-related news in addition to mainstream news. While we don't use them as a source for a huge number of articles here on the English Wikipedia [31] because it is a Russian news site, nr2.ru is widely used on the Russian Wikipedia. [32] --Tothwolf (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ten sentences is "significant" coverage? Rilak (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I consider two detailed paragraphs in Russian plus a photo of the board itself plenty of coverage for a single reliable source, particularly since this is a mainstream news company and not a news site dedicated solely to computing topics. I did note that this time you aren't trying the "That source is unreliable" angle. I guess since you can't claim this source to be unreliable, you'll instead try to claim it is insignificant. --Tothwolf (talk) 06:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that I always portray coverage of the Natami in bad light suggests that you never bothered to actually scrutinize the sources I examined to determine whether my assessments of them were accurate. One editor (one that is actually sympathetic to Natami, I should add) has examined my assessments of the sources in question and has found no issue with my assessments [33]. In contrast, your claim that ten sentences of coverage and a photo qualifies as significant coverage has been questioned by myself and another editor [34]. It really seems that you portray all coverage of Natami as reliable and/or significant while accusing anyone who dares assess the nature of sources (as they should as editors) of gaming the system. I wonder whether you will consistently argue that ten sentences and a photo qualifies as significant coverage in all AfDs. Rilak (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Rilak, I don't know about others, but I'm not falling for your tactics of suggestion. You also know better than to make false statements such as "you portray all coverage of Natami as reliable and/or significant" while trying to put words in my mouth to discredit me.

I've mentioned two reliable sources, both of which you have personally taken issue with, using whatever means you could think of. This article/interview in Amiga Future (imprint & editors information) is reliable. This news article published by nr2.ru is also reliable. (The two paragraphs in the news article might only have "ten sentences", however that does not mean they are extremely short 5 word English sentences, but good try.)

P.S. Rilak, nice tactic of using an extremely short reply "Ten sentences is "significant" coverage?" [35] when attempting to suggest to others that nr2.ru's coverage was "small" or "insignificant" and therefore unimportant or even unreliable. This is however a suggestion 101 tactic :) --Tothwolf (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that I am using such tactics? Rilak (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, article needs work, but AFD isn't cleanup. I am unconvinced by the arguments that the russian article, the french web magazine, and Amiga Future are not reliable sources, and I think those provide sufficient coverage to establish general notability. That some sources focus only on Amiga related issues is of no more import than it is that Tennis Magazine focuses on Tennis related issues and would thus be unacceptable as a source for, say, a particular kind of tennis racket. I am also unconvinced that the mere fact that a magazine's publisher may have an indirect fiscal interest in the article's subject makes that magazine an unreliable source. If the Natami folks owned the magazine, such reasoning would apply. In the interest of disclosure I came over from RSN. As an aside, I would ask that editors confine their comments to the issues at hand and refrain from personal characterizations. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of your arguments are against inaccurate interpretations of the opposing arguments. Regarding the Russian article, it has not been described as unreliable. Instead, the issue is that it is too short, failing WP:N's requirement that the coverage be significant. Secondly, why is the French fanzine reliable when the fanzine describes itself as a self-published magazine written voluntarily by fans? How does a publication written voluntarily by fans, who may or may not have journalistic training, operating in an informal organization on a voluntary basis meet WP:RS's requirement that for a publication to be considered reliable, there must be an indication that the publication has processes that go towards the goal of reliability? Lastly, the portrayal that the possible financial link between ACP & TCP is "indirect" is vague and inaccurate. Indirect relative to what? The link is as direct as a retailer paying a publisher to publish a magazine about the products the retailer sells. Rilak (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I simply disagree that the russian article's coverage is insignificant. The french source bills itself as a magazine, and it looks like the usual small online magazine for a restricted technical topic, apparently they have a staff and they claim to edit/review the online articles. You claim above that Versalia is a "sponsor" of Amiga Future, but it appears to me that they are an advertiser, if you look closely at [36], you can see their ad prominently displayed under the word "Advertising". Amiga Future appears to be owned by APC&TCP, which does sell software, posters, and accessories, but I do not believe they sell hardware, and I do not see the Natami for sale on their web site, so they appear to be independent of the Natami project. Amiga Future also appears to have a pretty extensive editing staff, so I think that source is clearly reliable. I have read through all of this twice now, and I just disagree with you. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are no independent reliable sources. Typically, not-yet-completed projects do not get reviews and are not notable at least until they are released. Sometime they are never released and why should we have an article about a piece of copycat technology that isn't even finished yet. Once it is finished and released, then it can get independent reviews which may satisfy the general notability guideline, but the subject does not meet that guideline now. Yworo (talk) 20:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
since when is the allegedly copycat nature of something relevant to notability ? Our role is not to judge the originality or quality of products, any more than the correctness of the views of politicians, just their importance as determined by the sources covering them. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the project is existent and it has some reliable independent coverage. I don't understand arguments that specialized magazines doesn't count as reliable, otherwise ~500.000 article should be deleted out of this reason. The world need specialization and thus even in the IT world gets more and more in more splits. The longer the project will last, the more coverage will get into the article. mabdul 23:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There have been editors who have argued that specialized sources are not indicative of notability, but there are also arguments that much of the specialized sources are not as reliable as have been portrayed. The latter arguments are separate from the former; discrediting the former does not do the same to the latter. Rilak (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources are sufficient RSs for the topic (and are quite normal for good quality computer related articles in wikipedia.). The opposition seems to be based on the weird concept that specialized sources do not prove the notability of specialized topics. Where one expects specialized topics to be written about is in sources on the subject. The notability of topics in Macintosh/Amiga/IBM software and hardware is proven by significant coverage in reliable publications devoted to Macintosh/Amiga/IBM software and hardware, not coverage in publications devoted to other subjects--which if anything, are in general less, not more reliable. This is the same in all subject fields. There are publications devoted to specific sports--substantial articles in them prove the notability of people active in those sports. There are magazines cover specific literary authors: articles in Shakespeare Quarterly prove the notability of topics related to Shakespeare. That nobody would buy a Macintosh/Amiga/IBM publication if there were no such products is even less relevant to the reliability of those magazines; nobody would buy Car and Driver if there were no automodbiles, nobody would buy the WSJ if there were no financial sector in the economy, but that does not make either of them unreliable for the field they cover. I am truly astounded at this line of argument: perhaps there is animus against this particular product on the part of one or more editors involved in the general subject field, but I think it more likely that it represents a mote general destructive intent to find spurious reasons for deleting as many articles as possible, rather than following policy and attempting to save as many as possible. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment, Can't tell if serious. References appear to be a pile of links to web forums and blog posts and said subject is a device that doesn't actually exist. I think a lot of well intentioned people forget that this is an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koft (talk • contribs) 03:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • @ Koft: Existent!, Oh, please get a life. You can't claim as non existent a product that has been seen in various Amiga Exhibits presented to public. There are also various youtube videos in which Natami is presented internationally to anyone linked to the web and it was shown running real Amiga Software (one example for all: here at this link showing LX prototype). From news I read online, there are at least two Natami MX board (MX is definitive model that will be sold on the market) that were been already developed and assembled; First one: in february 2011, and Second one in may 2011. Also developers of Natami are so funny that they made a public "five days running test" of the MX motherboard, as the official tester was the little daughter of one of the developers (read about the 5 days full testing here), At least Natami developers have sense of humor and are capable to make a laugh right about themselves and their motherboard. Sincerely, --Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
        • users personal lives are not relevant to this discussion The product is not finished, hence it doesn't exist. Nobody can buy natami, because its in prototype stage and subsequently this is why there is a severe lack of references about it, nobody can actually review it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koft (talk • contribs) 04:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • (P.S.: I found yet another interview with a developer of Natami here on reviewmylife site. Is that a technology news site? Seems to me professional, judging from its aspect, but I found no info about it.)--Raffaele Megabyte (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's a personal blog, see this, thus not RS unless the author is considered an acknowledged expert on the topic at hand. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Definitely not a reliable source. He does claim that the site is more like a static website and that he is just using WordPress for content management, [37] so while maybe not a "blog" in the traditional sense, it is still a personal website. --Tothwolf (talk) 16:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG, I have to say that I am a bit offended because I have been lumped in with other editors who have been arguing that specialized sources cannot evidence notability. I have never voiced such an opinion. My argument for deletion rests on other reasons, reasons which you have ignored in your generalization. The entire crux of your keep rationale rests on the ability of specialized to evidence notability, but that fails to address my nomination rationale and the ample evidence showing that much of the coverage is not what the editors favoring keep have portrayed it to be. Rilak (talk) 04:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly notable as in WP:N, since the number and content of the mentioned sources give a clear impression of a remarkable international relevance in IT and not being a small 1 person project. Also refer to For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort. This guideline seems to have missed entirely on the first AfD. It is disturbing to see, that it appears one user is very obsessed with deletion and discrediting all generally accepted seconard sources, using good rhetoric but failing substantial prove or not answering at all, when he gets caught. Also refer to WP:SPS are *largely* not acceptable. This guideline is surely not a kill criteria for ignoring entirely all available infos from blogs that are existing supplementary to the already mentioned source matching WP criteria as as a second source. Met adm (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)— Met adm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep We're doing this again? Bah. The only thing that has changed, is more sources have been found. As I said last time: A print magazine dedicated to Amiga topics gives it ample coverage. The magazine owners aren't trying to promote a product that they sell, but instead reviewing something of interest to its readers, the Amiga community. Those who seem knowledgeable about this subject, seem to believe the article is notable. Dream Focus 21:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're doing it again because the last AfD, which ended in a conclusion to delete, was overturned because the admin who closed it decided to give some keep voters a second day in court. I don't know that "bah" is the right reaction, given your stance on the article :P. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is more to it than that. I was just the first editor to bring it up on the closing admin's talk page, per the recommended process for DRV. Given the sources, had it gone to DRV (and apparently I wasn't the only one considering it), it most likely would have been overturned to either no consensus or an outright keep. This is why it was relisted here. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is there any hope of consensus towards a merge? That Natami has sufficient verifiable information to warrant a paragraph (or few) at a fairly obvious destination seems easy to justify. The only dispute over the current sourcing is whether it's strong enough to confer notability sufficient for a separate article. I am absolutely opposed to the outright removal of Natami content from Wikipedia, I just remain unconvinced that it warrants its own article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mutants in Wrong Turn

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

Wikipedia is not for plot-only description of fictional works, and such description of the Wrong Turn series is no exception. The existence of this list constitutes excessive description of these films, in my opinion. As stated by this guideline, "articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded." These articles do not do so, and I don't think that they ever could do so. The mutants in these films should be covered briefly in the main articles instead. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same goes for the other characters in the Wrong Turn series, which is why I'm also nominating this other list for deletion:

List of Wrong Turn characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily. Unlike these lists, the Hills Have Eyes articles have the real world as their primary frame of reference, as there are clearly sources available to make that possible. In addition, compared to the Wrong Turn series, The Hills Have Eyes is a far more successful franchise that has apparently drawn far more coverage in independent sources. Taking all that into consideration, I wouldn't say that local consensus is equally applicable in this case. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


I am closing this as a Speedy Keep, fitting criteria 1 and 2 (the disruption was in good-faith). The nomination is silly. Feedback ☎ 22:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC))}[reply]

Bartolomeo di ser Gorello

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

Does not appear to meet WP:N and Google only brings a little over 2100 results. chris†ianrocker90 21:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. — --Lambiam 10:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. — --Lambiam 10:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Google test does not work very well for 14th-century people. But, as our essay on that test notes: "Article subject: If it's about some historical person, one or two mentions in reliable texts might be enough." Well, there are many more than that. The chronicle he wrote (Cronica dei fatti d'Arezzo) is indisputably an historically important work. The fact that he has an entry in a respectable scholarly encyclopedia should already tell one that this is a notable individual.  --Lambiam 10:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I have a question, if he so damn important to the history of that commune for his work on that chronicle, then why does he only have a one line stub? Surely there's a WikiProject for that, right? chris†ianrocker90 19:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's interesting: each different version of Wikipedia varies in the amount of topics they have covered, and many have different notability standards. The Italian Wikipedia has less than a quarter of the articles that we do, so it isn't too strange that they haven't covered him yet. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Special mention goes to Bearian for a significant improvement to the article (see here; article is now nicely compacted, sourced, and demonstrates notability. m.o.p 05:01, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation

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

Survived an AfD a couple of years ago after the nomination was withdrawn. However, all I'm seeing is an unnotable organisation with a dearth of in-depth coverage in reliable sources, which fails the general notability guideline. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm surprised that the sources thrown up were blithely accepted as evidence of the subject's notability. Of the one independent source that isn't a broken link, the only mention of the subject is that the congregation's rabbi was quoted in a story - and as we all know, I am sure, WP:ORG explicitly states that quotes from an organization's personnel do not qualify by themselves as valid sources. There are no reliable, independent sources which discuss the subject in the "significant detail" required, and the Keep proponents in the earlier AfD (several of whom are veteran editors) ought to have known better.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  19:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because there are sufficient references and sources for this article, as in why the previous nomination did not succeed. This is a synagogue and it can only be notable as such in its own context. IZAK (talk) 02:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The previous nomination did not succeed because the Keep proponents ignored - or perhaps just never bothered to examine - that the sources did not qualify under any notability criteria. If you believe that there are reliable, independent sources which discuss this congregation in significant detail, what are they, please?

    That being said, "This is a synagogue and it can only be notable as such in its own context" is a curious phrase with no basis in Wikipedia policy or guideline. As you know, there is no presumptive notability for synagogues, and synagogues must fulfill the criteria of WP:V and WP:ORG in the same fashion as any other organization.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  02:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure why you're being so harsh. A synagogue is a quiet spiritual center that does not make waves. It is not an "organization" it is a place of worship where Jews gather to pray and to learn Torah at times, and as such the fact that Jews designate such a place and that it is recognized as such by its environment it is notable, especially if there are very few such places and they cite sources as this article does. Note, America is a young country, and Jews are only 6 million out of a vast population of over 300 million, so proportionately such synagogues are notable. One does not check in one's mind and rational faculties at the door when writing WP articles. WP does not deny reality either. That is why WP:EXPERT editors are so important in any field. Could you tell us what you would deem to be "notability" in any synagogue please so that this and other articles like it could be improved in a constructive manner? Thanks. IZAK (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: I'd be happy to do so. What I would deem as meeting Wikipedia's standards of notability for a synagogue, as with any other religious congregation (since of course Wikipedia makes no unique exceptions to its policies for topics relating to Judaism), is meeting the standards of the GNG: that it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I'm unsure why you characterize this requirement of the encyclopedia as "harsh" - I would characterize it as fundamental. Neither America's antiquity or the number of Jews in the United States being legitimate factors in any such debate - not the least of which is that the subject of this article is not in the United States - do you have any arguments founded in Wikipedia's policies or notability criteria to proffer? Certainly WP:EXPERT - a proposal that was in fact rejected - is not one, which is curious, because I've seen you raise it before in related AfDs. Surely you aren't inferring that editors who cannot demonstrate expertise in Judaism (and, come to that, to whose satisfaction?) be debarred from AfDs relating to Jewish subjects?  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  10:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ravenswing: Thanks for your response. To reply: 1 I will avoid WP:LAWYERING for now and focus on a rational and logical discussion based on facts and reality the building blocks that precede any resort to citation of this and that WP policies, that I have done in any case. 2 The article does cite enough sources for a synagogue. Short of being firebombed or existing for a thousand years, almost all synagogues would not make it, so where does that leave us, a "synagogue free" WP? that seems counter-productive. 3 You seem to equate your own MO with WP's which is not the same thing. 4 There are many ways to build and write an encyclopedia and not even the greatest works of literature come out as finished products from the minds of their creators but take years to build. 5 Perhaps I should have clarified, but I cited the example of America because this AfD is one of six AfDs (a very higher number and very worrying) now on the go and they mostly deal with the USA. The case of the UK is no different, with relatively few Jews, and even less synagogue-going ones, as being part of the general population. 6 My own attitude is that I would never dream of sticking my nose into topics and AfDs etc that I do not edit in, such as in Christian or Muslim or Scientific subjects because I would leave that up to experts in those fields, but of course WP lets anyone move freely, but that does not mean they should lose perspective. 7 A better way would be to contact editors in that field, e.g. via WP:TALKJUDAISM in this case, and engage them just as easily as one starts contentious deletions that are bound to arouse fears and suspicions and poison the well of goodwill. 8 No one is calling for "debarring" anyone, that is a just a harsh term again, but common sense and courtesy means that editors should ideally respect others who may deal with other fields of knowledge that they are not known to get involved in besides for stirring up disputes and animosity through contentious AfDs. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This synagogue is an important part of Manchester's Jewish community. Furthermore, since the earlier comments above, a large number of additional cited references have been added. Davshul (talk) 08:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong; no new sources were added. Today's edit corrected the citation on several of them, but added nothing new, and the sources remain the same deficient ones as before. The first source is a statistical table.

The second source merely lists this synagogue's address among the thirty-seven synagogues it identifies in the greater Manchester area - leading one to question upon what evidence Davshul asserts that this is a particular notable synagogue?

The third source has the single sentence "On 15th September 2002, antisemitic epithets were shouted in the direction of the Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation in Manchester."

The fourth source has the quote from the congregation's rabbi which I'd mentioned earlier, in an article otherwise unrelated to the congregation, and as such is explicitly barred by WP:ORG as being a source pertaining to this subject.

The fifth and sixth sources are broken links, but if accurately quoted in the article, are about the congregation's former rabbi, not about the subject of this article.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  10:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To say that this synagogue is an important part of Manchester's Jewish community seems to be incorrect. The article states that Manchester's Jewish community numbers 35,000 people, while the congregation of this synagogue is 550. That seems to make it a run of the mill, mundane place, rather than one capable of meeting the notability guidelines. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Credible claim of notability for a major congregation, backed by appropriate reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to be a run of the mill Synagogue that fails to have any specific notability per WP:NONPROFIT or WP:GNG. It makes no claims of notability in the article itself other than being the subject of being the target of antisemitic shouting (which was a passing reference of WP:ONEEVENT). The other two primary claims in the article are about the Rabbi, not the synagogue, and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. I also tried to find any evidence of it being a nationally famous local organization, but failed to. I have also found no evidence of particularly unique longevity, size of membership, major achievements, or prominent scandals. In terms of GNG, I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage for any general factors either. The majority of the "Keep" arguments above are comprised of WP:JUSTAVOTE as well and do not add comments in favour of keeping, with one other argument being, "This synagogue is an important part of Manchester's Jewish community" but no reliable source coverage to support notability of such a claim. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think the claims, if backed up by reliable sources, would show notability. I'll take a closer look before taking a stand. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go with a keep and rescue for the following reasons:
  1. It's important because of the attraction it appears to have for notable hate crimes. Two good sources already in the article prove that there have been two incidents of Anti-semitism that affected the congregation: one in 2002 and one in 2005. I found a third incident from April 2000.
  2. It is a "provincial synagogue under the aegis of the Chief Rabbi."
  3. It is notable for its past rabbi. WP:NOTINHERITED has more exceptions than you can shake a family tree at. In fact, houses of worship are sometimes notable because of who was its incumbent (priest or in this case, rabbi). For example, the Church of the Holy Trinity, Philadelphia is famous because future bishop Phillips Brooks wrote O Little Town of Bethlehem there when he was its rector. In this case, The Rev Leslie Olsberg MBE, Heaton Park's late rabbi, shows that his former sinecure is notable. (By the way, in a piece of trivia, he was also the first witness called in a notable trademark law case.
  4. It is a fairly large sized congregation for Britain (see p. 21 of the census), and especially for Manchester, England.
  5. Epeefleche has already started a job of rescuing it.
  6. Very few electronic media outlets (TV, radio, Internet news) carry religious news today; therefore, generic Internet searches (Google, Bing) do not always give a full picture of a house of worship's notability. Editors should be allowed time to find paper sources as well. Bearian (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a case where we need to use a good dose of common-sense. The notability guidelines were established to avoid articles being written on obviously non-notable subjects (such as my cat who is truly exceptional but not, sadly, of general interest:-)). They weren't designed to eliminate pages on clearly significant topics such as this, which is a subject on which many people want to find some NPOV information. Oh, and in case my comment is not considered policy-complain, yes, it meets WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article needs some work - although I have seen a lot worse - but there is more than enough content available in independent and reliable third-party sources to establish notability. Rangoon11 (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep large, significant congregation. I have added information from architectural historians about the building.PA6-5000 (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no indication of significant coverage (mostly only passing mention), or of any particular claim to notability. Places where somebody famous lived, worked, etc are not notable, unless their notability is demonstrated independently of their famous occupant -- that's the whole point of WP:NOTINHERITED. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's certainly nice padding-out work. But really, adding stuff about a violinist who was stabbed nearby stretches the limit of inherited notability. All of the references give passing mentions. They do not confer notability, and if anything their inclusion highlights the fact that there are zero decent references out there. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the refs are of varying values (and one can always pick on the weakest to make a slew of them appear questionable). But having looked at them in toto, I felt that (unlike some of the other nominations in this nom's supporter Basket's rash of synagogue-AfDs) there was no need for me to do more research, and pile on by adding even more. These collectively to my mind reflect sufficient notability for wp purposes. Apparently, about 2/3 of those who have responded to the nomination share that view. (this is better than some of nom's supporter Basket's other concurrent nominations, some of which have resulted in 100% disagreement ... something that one might think would give a good faith nom pause).--Epeefleche (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why you're having a pop at Basket. I started this AfD in good faith, and my opinion is still that it should be deleted. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if that discussion applies here, since I nominated this article for deletion, and I was unaware that any other synagogues had been nominated. Frankly, I care less. This is still an unnotable synagogue.Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. You'd have been better served either checking my edit history (and seeing that it was pretty random across quite a wide spread of topics), or finding sources for this poor article. By your rationale, any editor who states they are Jewish also has a conflict of interest. That is clearly nonsense, as is the suggestion that I have a conflict interest. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've personally found Dylan to be a good and honest editor, and have no reason to think him guilty (though others in this slew of deletions may well be) of an inappropriate POV driving his deletion nomination. (At the same time I agree with the strong editor consensus sentiment, running now by a 2-1 margin, that the article is a !keep).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The work by User:Paul Erik seems to have pushed it over the edge.--Kubigula (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman Halsey

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

Prolific? Yes. However, I'm copletely unable to find any reliable biographical info on him — literally nothing other than his website and Facebook verifies that he's from Independence, Kansas. His résumé shows that he's directed very many videos, primarily for Tim McGraw, but a long résumé means nothing without reliable third-party sources. The only sources I found in Google News were one sentence mentions (i.e. "Sherman Halsey directed the video for song X"), directory listings or false positives.

The awards he won aren't terribly valid assertations of notability either: GAC and CMT are fan-voted; MTV is apparently awarded to the artist; and only the ACM award is of any validity. However, the Video of the Year is awarded to both the artist and the director, so it's possible to win that award and not be notable as a director.

The article was previously deleted for failing the reliable sources test, and one year later, it still fails that same test. Precedent in both the first AFD and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kristin Barlowe suggest that directing multiple music videos ≠ automatic notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sprinting faster (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With a career that notable, his work seen by millions, how can he not be notable? Also, if a music video wins an award, then the director of it is notable. They don't just give it away because they like the song. Search for his name and "video" to find some results. [39] Dream Focus 14:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A director is notable based on their work and the awards they have won. And what the small number of people that showed up to comment in a previous AFD said, doesn't have anything to do with what consensus will be for this one. Dream Focus 08:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Mr. Halsey has an impressive list of credits, but an unimpressive list of reliable, third party sources talking about him directly and in significant detail. I do not agree that an award-winning music video automatically confers notability on that video's director. There are several music video directors who have become notable because of their craft (Spike Jonze leaps to mind; he was probably notable before his successful feature film career), but only because they have been the subject of significant coverage in third party sources because of their efforts. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANYBIO The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times. Dream Focus 08:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: the only WP:Verifiable information in this article appears to be the 'Filmography', and Wikipedia is WP:NOT a repository for pages comprised solely of such material -- go to IMDB for that. Whilst the topic should be notable based on his awards, the article still needs third-party biographical information in order to be viable. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 11:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – We would expect Wikipedia to have coverage of an individual whose recognition by peers and fans has led to multiple awards and award nominations. Just now I've added citations to multiple sources. Although some of them are brief mentions, I don't think I've added ones with trivial mentions, and there are enough of them to meet the bar of WP:N. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 13:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: given the largest chunk of the newly-sourced material is cited to a press release (the rest being largely fragmentary), and most of the biographical material remains unsourced, I would question whether this article demonstrates that the topic meets WP:N's requirement for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (changing vote from delete) per excellent improvements to the article since nomination. Agree with Paul Erik's assessment of the references he's added to the article and the manner in which they combine to demonstrate notability (to say nothing of a very impressive, award-winning, and varied career). The best AfD's are the ones where the article ends up getting improved through the process. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Moot; the article is already deleted by db-g7 (author requested deletion). (Non-admin closure.)  --Lambiam 21:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Les physiques du curling

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

This article was written totally in French, even though the author can write and read English very well. The user's user page says that his account was created for a science project and, since this is the user's only creation, one may presumable infer that this article is the said science project.[40] The article has problems because it's in a foreign language, it has no in-line citations, it contains possible original research, no other articles link to it. But, for me, the biggest problem is that a student has decided to take advantage of Wikipedia and to use us as webspace for his homework; which goes against WP:WEBSPACE. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Given that the article was created less than an hour before nomination, that there are sources (just not inline) and that the nominator took the admirable step of adding this to WP:PNT, I wonder if it's worth giving this a little more of a chance before talking deletion. To me, the homework thing doesn't even enter into the question as long as the article itself is good (which it could be, if it can get past the pesky language and citation issues). Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article itself should I think be moved to the french wikipedia and then any useful content should merge with the french curling article. I'm not sure how to propose an interwiki merge - if there is such a thing, if not propose to merge it with the curling article and leave the PNT tag. I'm not sure if there is much 'new' content there, but there might be a bit that could be saved EdwardLane (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sprinting faster (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Progressed (EP)

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

Proposing a 'redirect of this article to Progress (Take That album). This EP is a re-release of the album with extra tracks. Referred to as a repackage by the OCC here and is charting as such. Mister sparky (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- Although it is being treated by OCC as a repackage it was treated by the IRMA here, critics and reviews as a stand alone EP here. It should be kept as it holds a lot of information and thus should be treated in the same way as Lady Gaga's Fame Monster EP which also consisted of 8 new tracks here. That alone provides a precedent for it to remain as an article. Yids2010 (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - It's being marketed as a new release. That's why they put the 8 new tracks on the first disc, not the last (like most re-releases), because it signifies a standalone album.--z33k (talk) 16:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - As mentioned above and shown in the examples. It was marketed as a new release and referred to by Take That themselves as the brand new albumhere and so should remain. Virus101 (talk) 00:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - I agree, it was promoted as a new album so it is a new album. It's not Progress with extra songs but Progressed with Progress attached. Progressed should be kept on a separate page. (talk) 20:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC 1)
KEEP - What everyone else has said ^^. Gaga's The Fame Monster was an EP of The Fame, that has it's own article, can't have double standards. It is the same concept as Progress and Progressed. Calvin • 999 19:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the comparisons to the fame monster are irrelevant, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Mister sparky (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the EP has just debuted in Denmark shown here in hung medien under the title of Progressed again emphasising the fact that it is a stand alone collection. Yids2010 (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the OCC still clasifies it as a re-entry. so yes agreed in some countries it is classed as a new album, but in some it is not. so yes agreed it can stay. but any occ positions cannot be added to it. Mister sparky (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
or as with the fame monster article, a note is given stated they charted in conjunction with each other. Mister sparky (talk) 13:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Sprinting faster (talk) 09:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scrappy-Doo

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

Clearly, this not meet WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 19:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered merging or redirecting to the existing character article for the Scooby Doo series first? That seems like the more logical initial step.--76.69.169.220 (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-known cartoon character. The article already has some sources, and it is certainly possible to find others (see the "find sources" links above). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't understand any of these CN nominations that you keep putting up lately for obviously notable characters and parts of programs. This is well-sourced and there's nothing that violates WP:PLOT in the least. Nate • (chatter) 05:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Widely known in New Zealand, can't speak for anywhere else. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No out-of-universe context or notability. For a second there I thought this one was notable, given a reference to the NY Times. But once you read that article, you see it's not really about this character and just an in-passing mention. Perhaps there are some sources from New Zealand if this character is so well-known there? --Crusio (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable character regardless of the article's current state. Perhaps Crusio and Jj98 could tell us where and how they looked for sources, because I found these with a quick Google search: a lengthy paragraph about the casting of Scrappy's voice in "The Magic Behind the Voices: A Who's Who of Cartoon Voice Actors"[41]; a comparative character analysis of Scrappy and Scooby in "A comparison of cultural values in animated cartoons produced for the theatre and television, Volume 2", a book published by a university press[42]; The A.V. Club lists Scrappy-Doo as #1 on its list of "memorably unpopular characters", commenting on why fans hated the character[43]; Hanna-Barbera character designer Iwao Takamoto comments at length on Scrappy-Doo's creation and his negative view of the character and his view that it was a step backwards in the development of his employer's animation[44]; content on Scrappy-Doo's introduction in "Cartoon Superstars", which "traces the history of popular cartoon characters..."[45] and in "The Art of Hanna-Barbera: Fifty Years of Creativity"[46]; "Magill's Cinema Annual: 2003", commenting re: Scooby-Doo 2 film, "The best joke is that the much-hated late addition to the show, the cloying Scrappy-Doo, makes an appearance..."[47]; a gender-based critique in "The female investigator in literature, film, and popular culture" on shifting of Velma's "investigative role" to the puppy Scrappy, and commentary on Scrappy's personality[48]...

    I found a lot more hits in books, but they unfortunately didn't have page or snippet views. I'd be shocked if there wasn't a lot more out there offline given the attention that Saturday morning cartoons (not to mention network shows generally) receive from television industry analysts, media critics, animation historians, and fan-oriented works. This Wikia page, though unsourced, certainly suggests as much: "Scrappy-Doo was added to the cast of Scooby-Doo to save the show's ratings, which by 1979 had begun to sink to the point of cancellation threats from ABC. After his addition to the show proved to be a ratings success, Hanna-Barbera restructured the show around Scrappy in 1980." postdlf (talk) 06:22, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Quite notable, as there were three different animated series featuring both Scooby and Scrappy as the main characters, and he was in the live-action Scooby-Doo movie as well. There are, as said previously, many different sources for this character. Indynchild (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Plenty of reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Neelix (talk) 14:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 19:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omohan Ebhodaghe

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

Declined speedy. The subject may be notable in the context of Nigerian literature. causa sui (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Underground" publishing is quite common in Nigeria, so it's hard to determine his notability in Nigeria based on internet search. Nigerian Observer mentions five books that there doesn't seem to be any other reference to on the internet. But references are clearly needed, so I'm not sure. An expert in Nigerian literature would be very helpful. – Danmichaelo (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update: According to a comment on Talk:Omohan_Ebhodaghe, the novels mentioned in Nigerian Observer are forthcoming novels, not published ones. That makes me supportive of deletion. – Danmichaelo (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Sprinting faster (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Croce Elementry School

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

nonnotable elementary school, and WP says such schools do not automatically qualify for articles. school adequately mentioned in the school district article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect. Sprinting faster (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marylin Avenue Elementary School

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

no particular notability for this elementary school, and WP guidelines state that schools below high school level do not automatically pass notability for sep. article. school already mentioned in the district article, redirect recommended. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 19:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hector Castillo

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

Unsuccessful political candidate from gubernatorial election in 2005. Only references are expired closed campaign sites. Google search finds no evidence of particular notability. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. | Uncle Milty | talk | 18:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Sprinting faster (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was 'Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#G7' Toddst1 (talk) 01:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interstate (software)

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

WP:NN product created by COI / SPA editor. All sources that might indicate WP:Notability are WP:NN blogs or otherwise self-published. Unable to find any WP:RS for this product. {{Findsources}} turns up nothing, no press activity found. Failed {{prod}} when creator objected. Toddst1 (talk) 16:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 16:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone 5th Generation

edit
IPhone 5th Generation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and is probably a hoax. No references. Also, seems like original research. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 15:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a hoax, and certainly not a G3 "blatant hoax". --Pontificalibus (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 16:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Child

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

Declined PROD. Article is about "Indian children" but contains facts or information that would apply to children worldwide; not specifically Indian children. Then the article goes on about social India topics that barely relate to children. Much of it seems original research. v/r - TP 14:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Esmail

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

WP:TOOSOON. One of a series of stub bios by the same editor, about actors debuting in a new movie. Single film credit fails WP:NACTOR. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had this on my AfD todo list and Nat Gertler beat me to it. Could only find one film he has been in and nothing else. Agreed, this is a case of too soon. Bgwhite (talk) 08:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. m.o.p 13:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mord Fustang

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

Musician of dubious notability. Google news search shows no significant coverage from independent third party publications. Provided references are blogs. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete as a blatant hoax, WP:SNOW. Resolute 15:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honey, Yukon

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

Possible hoax. Cannot find such a place in Google maps, and coordinates in the article don't point to a place by this name, and references provided do not substantiate the existence of the place. PKT(alk) 13:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —PKT(alk) 13:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we approaching the possibility of a speedy delete? PKT(alk) 00:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Don't see the sources offered in this discussion as significant coverage in reliable sources, because of the frequent recreations will salt J04n(talk page) 09:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Yogscast

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

YouTube podcast/show of dubious notability, other than a large number of views. Repeatedly recreated after many deletions - see logs for this page, as well as The YogPod, The yogscast, and Yogscast. No significant coverage found from independent third party publications. MikeWazowski (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Okay, if popularity isn't a reason, might I ask why SO MANY other Youtubers have a Wikipedia Page? Or Models, Actors and the like? Models don't MAKE clothing, actors don't MAKE movies, there is no reason whatsoever, on why they have a Wikipedia page. My theory is that they pay Wikipedia to be on here, but I can't prove that.

Furthermore, if The Yogscast can't have a Wikipedia page, then why can I have a mention somewhere? Even if it is completely false? MY name has been on here for 2,5 years. With false information, no source and no description at all. It's just there, somewhere on Wikipedia, placed there as a joke, by a friend. Now that is something that shouldn't be here.

And here what I wrote earlier:

"This page should not be speedy deleted because...

First of all, if this isn't 'important' or 'significant' then why are there actors on Wikipedia? What have they done that makes them deserve a page, even if all they have done is being featured in ONE episode of ONE show? And what about other internet 'celebrities'? Totalbiscuit has a page, Huskystarcraft and HDstarcraft hava pages, Smosh has a page, RayWilliamJohnson has a page, and countless more have them. Why are THEY ALLOWED to have one, and The Yogscast not?

Pretty soon (probably within a month), they'll enter the top 100 most subscribed channel on YouTube, if that doesn't warrant a page, then what does? They have arguably helped in the sales of the game Minecraft and Magicka enormously, thanks to their popularity (which is still growing, as evidenced by the fact that their subscriber count on Youtube has risen by 2,000 since yesterday). Not to mention the fact that I myself bought Magicka because I saw them having so much fun.

Other then that, they do charity events at times, which by itself should also be enough of a reason.

Exactly what reason do YOU (the person who tagged this for speedy deletion) have, to remove this? On a final note, this page isn't complete yet, why can't you just wait for a week? That's why I tagged it as a 'newpage'."

I am the creator of this article. Nielsthomas1 (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)— Nielsthomas1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to some podcast list or another. I found a few quick mentions on WoW Insider, some press releases on Gamasutra, some forum chatter. Popularity is not notability. Popularity will help the topic be picked up by secondary sources, but this hasn't significantly happened here yet. "might I ask why SO MANY other Youtubers have a Wikipedia Page?" - Wikipedia is freely editable, and those pages haven't yet been discussed? Marasmusine (talk) 12:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • no speedy delete I declined speedy delete as importance is claimed with large number of viewers, more than the typical Utube article that gets deleted here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep // Gargaj (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Teancum. We don't keep articles based on unverifiable speculation (i.e. "will become popular"), and we need more than just "hits", as they are also unreliable indicators of notability. –MuZemike 23:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The reason why it may be non-notable is that The Yogscast is mainly only known to the Minecraft community. People outside this community and who don't know about Minecraft may not have heard about this group (with Lewis, BlueXephos, etc.), and therefore this is not completely notable. - M0rphzone 01:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gemc

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

Non-notable software. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. per WP:CSD#G4 Favonian (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Stefanov

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

Article already deleted as player not played in a professional league. Suggest salting the page. Delusion23 (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 16:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Valiaveedu, Kanjiracode

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

Non-notable regional family. There are a few people with this name and the sparse coverage on external sources include nothing but the names. Delete —SpacemanSpiff 10:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, obviously – no need to spin this out for a week. BencherliteTalk 07:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol@souffs

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

Made up non-notable neologism. Only self-published sources. WP:MADEUP. Three editors' PROD-tags removed without explanation ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 08:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't, but kinda irrelevant if it did. pablo 16:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of rugby league culture these days. Most league fans recognise it. It's not made up - a rugby league forum of over 100000 members all recognise it at least. That's not just Sydney based people either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobbleheadWater (talk • contribs) 05:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC) — BobbleheadWater (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 — nomination withdrawn by nominator, no other opinions to delete (non-admin closure). —chaos5023 (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Learning Perl

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

No independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. Google search reveals blog posts and reader reviews at Amazon and elsewhere, but no formal reviews that qualify as reliable sources WP:RS. Wikipedia is not a catalog WP:NOTCATALOG. Msnicki (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retracting nomination: Two sources have since been provided which establish notability. Msnicki (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in WP:NBOOK do I see any provision that allows mere citations to be considered as evidence of notability. Msnicki (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in WP:NBOOK do I see any provision that makes mere citations not relevant to establishing notability. —Ruud 14:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But silly policy wonking aside, if 47 authors thought it was a good idea to refer their readers to this particular book, then that's probably a good indication the book is indeed quite notable. —Ruud 14:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBOOK states criteria for establishing notability. If mere citations are not on the list, it means they don't qualify. But if you can convince other editors to add language to WP:NBOOK that supports your reasoning, I'm on-board. I don't think that's going to happen. Msnicki (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why such a thing would be necessary? —Ruud 14:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, I doubt you will be unable to convince other editors to add any language indicating citations from other book are not to be used to determine notability. —Ruud 14:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The problem with NBOOK is that it's geared toward literature and fiction, not textbooks, which is what this is. It's the single best known textbook for a major programming language. Full disclosure--I own a copy and have met the author socially once. The citations mentioned above are really an appropriate measure of a textbook's worth--no one issues awards for technology textbooks, nor studies their authors, nor teaches classes on their influence on popular culture... you get the point. NBOOK criteria 2 are essentially irrelevant to the entire field. Jclemens (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unlikely that the editors who worked out that policy weren't aware of technical manuals and user guides. We're awash in them! I think the problem is that most of them genuinely aren't notable. Sure, there are exceptions, like K&R's, C Programming Language, or Kernighan and Pike's The UNIX Programming Environment , that influenced the world, introducing genuinely new ideas about programming languages and operating systems. But most technical books, even good ones like this one, are turn-the-crank how-to technical writing, explaining the features one-by-one with some good examples. No question, it requires skill and some writers are better than others. But notability is all and only about what other reliable independent sources say about the subject. Notability means people actually took note not just that it seems like they should have. Certainly, notability does not come simply from having sold a lot of copies. WP:BIGNUMBER Msnicki (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How much do you really know about this book, this publisher, and this author? I'm suspecting not much, but I'd like to hear your perspective on your own level of clued-in-ness before I expound farther. Jclemens (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should discuss the sources and the guidelines, not each other. Msnicki (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you have no personal experience with or about this book, and are just looking at it through the sterile lens of policy, rather than a view of its encyclopedic value informed by, oh, being in the IT field for a decade or two and actually having read and used the book in question? Jclemens (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the "other words" are that I do own a copy, but you're being uncivil, bordering on personal attack and you should stop. Now. Personal experience is irrelevant here, which is why I don't discuss mine and no one cares about yours. Msnicki (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's some mighty thin skin there, when I was simply trying to AGF about your motivations in nominating such a book for deletion. I do think you are either prone to hyperbole or you have a very... unique view of what constitutes a personal attack. Jclemens (talk) 02:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that at this point I've edited the article to add 8 separate RS references, demonstrating pretty conclusively that the book meets the WP:GNG. Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only the Morrey and Rooijackers reviews actually count towards establishing notability (the rest being either minor mentions or irrelevant comment about the author) but it does only take two WP:RS and you have them. Msnicki (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pro forma notability-establishing citations now added, but IMO never should have been nominated in the first place. C'mon, Msnicki. Learning Perl? Seriously? I really feel like you're going too far in the direction of trying to apply Wikipedia guidelines legalistically. They aren't statutes, weren't written to function as statutes and so produce crazy results when applied as if they were statutes. —chaos5023 (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If something's notable, there should be sources to establish that under the guidelines. When I nominated this article, it did not appear there were any. Jclemens has since found some sources, of which two are indeed suitable for establishing notability, and consequently, I'm retracting my nomination. Msnicki (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The book is well-known and has a somewhat legendary status in the Perl community. I think that if we have articles about all kinds of programming languages, even exotic and little-used ones, we should have articles about some of the most notable books too, because they can be very influential. This, in connection with Ruud's argument (the book cited in 47 other books), makes this notable enough for our purposes. I understand the nominators concerns, and I think perhaps a community discussion should be initiated about notability of programming books. Nanobear (talk) 13:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. joe deckertalk to me 16:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Rodef Shalom (Falls Church, Virginia)

edit
Temple Rodef Shalom (Falls Church, Virginia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable congregation. No evidence of notability. Basket of Puppies 08:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of factual interest, but does this fact alone make it notable? I think not. Has it attained external attention/notability due to that fact? Chesdovi (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only book available at goole worth something is [51]. The rest are non-starters. Chesdovi (talk) 18:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you deduct references on youtube, facebook and yellow pages, it leaves little left of the "hundreds" of references on google. Chesdovi (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PERNOM is an essay that contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a Wikipedia policy. I, for one, see little merit in it -- if an editor wishes to say "I agree w/editor x, for the reasons he stated" -- that is fine. No need for him to clutter the page by repeating the same words, slightly varied.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the sources are clearly enough to warrant an entry. Yossiea (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Given the last 8 keeps in a row here, and the references reflecting notability, this would seem to me to be a viable candidate to be snow-closed. No need for the community to spend any more time on this -- there are more productive pursuits to which their talents could be better applied elsewhere on the project.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As the largest congregation in Virginia and one of the largest in the United States to be led by a female Rabbi, backed by a reliable and verifiable source, the claims of notability justify retention. Alansohn (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you to Epeefleche and Arxiloxos for digging up the references I didn't have time to find. Well done. Cullen328 (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No point citing supposed sources here without adding them. This article has not changed much since 2007 and if no one is willing to build it to make it acceptable per GNG, better had let it go. Chesdovi (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that mis-states how AFD works. If the refs exists, that suffices. It does not matter whether they are added to the article--that is not the AFD criterion.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
lol. So it will be re-nominated every few months until they are added! If Barak Obama was not sourced, it would not exist. Chesdovi (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being clear. You seem to believe that the test is whether the refs exist in the article itself. That's not the test.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a new article. Since the Afd, no sources have been added. What's the point of keeping if it will remain static? Chesdovi (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are working within the AfD guidelines, when we !vote as to whether an article should be deleted per wp rules. WP rules do not require that the refs exist in the article -- it is sufficient that they exist (and sufficient certainly for the AFD discussion if they are pointed out in the AFD discussion, though that is not a requirement either). If you don't think that is a wise policy, the place to address it would be at the AFD guideline itself, I would suggest. Per the AFD guidline, an article should not even be nominated in the first place if the (required) good-faith attempt to confirm whether sources exist shows that they do exist--there is no requirement whatsoever that the sources appear as refs in the article itself.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There was a majority of keepers. I have read each of the sources, and none of the independent sources address the subject directly and in detail. What we have are specific facts about, and aspects of the work of, the subject that are sourced. Putting these sources together has led a majority of editors to judge that WP:GNG has been met. The Denver Post articles were particularly highlighted. I am handicapped in assessing them since I cannot see the full text through the pay wall. However, from the summary, the 2003 article majors on a topic and clearly exemplifies at least three different congregations. The 1995 appears to be majoring on an initiative of this congregation, but on a specific campaign not the subject as a whole. Having said that, it is the views of the commentators that count and a majority of them are satisfied that the sources meet the notability guidelines. However, because I consider that the better arguments of the deleters balances out their numerical deficit, I regard 'no consensus' as a fair summary of the discussion. TerriersFan (talk) 23:51, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Sinai (Denver, Colorado)

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

Non-notable congregation. No evidence of notability. Basket of Puppies 08:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the length is appropriate for a stub, but even stubs are supposed to be about notable topics. --Orlady (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a notable subject so why delete it almost on sight? Stubs are very frequently granted "stays of execution" by editors who care about the subject based on the following that I try to follow: Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. Some articles take years to improve and very few are born perfect. IZAK (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, this is not a brand-new stub. It was created in February 2008. Until the recent addition of "The temple's maintenance manual was featured in The Temple Management Manual...", the article had no assertion of notability -- no indication of anything about the synagogue that would make it anything other than "run of the mill". I do not see the republication of the temple's list of annual maintenance jobs (e.g., when to sweep the parking lot, when to order "winter supplies", and when to have the Torah covers dry cleaned) as indicating notability, but at least it's an assertion. --Orlady (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:PERNOM is an essay that contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a Wikipedia policy. I, for one, see little merit in it -- if an editor wishes to say "I agree w/editor x, for the reasons he stated" -- that is fine. No need for him to clutter the page by repeating the same words, slightly varied.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • IZAK, I strongly suggest you review WP:CITESPAM. It's awfully confusing for you to claim that I am inserting inappropriate links into article space for the purposes of increasing coverage in an inappropriate way in this AfD. If you would like administrative review of this then I strongly support this as it would be odd for any admin to find me in violation of adding spam links into articles while participating in this AfD. As for WP:HARASS, your argument holds no water whatsoever. Basket of Puppies 12:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to be a run of the mill Synagogue that fails to have any specific notability per WP:NONPROFIT or WP:GNG. It makes no claims of notability in the article itself other than the original research claim of WP:ONEEVENT of having its maintenance manual appear in print - which does not appear to have generated any secondary reliable source coverage at all. I also tried to find any evidence of it being a nationally famous local organization, but failed to. I have also found no evidence of particularly unique longevity, size of membership, major achievements, or prominent scandals. In terms of GNG, I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage for any general factors either. Looking through the references Epeefleche has suggested turns up passing references only. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Article seems somewhat notable to me. It could def. use some more sources and possibly expand. Tinton5 (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I made an effort to dig up something on Google or Google Books, and could only come up with passing references to the temple being on the register of historic places; however, I could not find a link. It seems like the former senior rabbi, Raymond A. Zwerin, is notable as a rabbi and author, and deserves his own page. Yoninah (talk) 14:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is becoming increasingly difficult to take the nominator seriously because he has made no effort to engage editors at WP:TALKJUDAISM who would have the potential interest in working with him to resolve his concerns. Never in the history of synagogue articles on WP have so many articles about Jewish synagogues been nominated for deletion within days starting from here to those he has attacked so far: [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], plus requesting speedy deletion of many others: [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103] (and more such efforts) within so short a span of time by one user, i.e. Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs)}. How much longer will this go on and be tolerated? This type of gung-ho come-what-may rigid "enforcement" deletionism automatically undermines WP:CONSENSUS-building and is bound to lead to future WP:EDITWARRING as more editors with a genuine interest in this topic feel violated and outraged as it undermines WP:AGF when such a wave of actions are conducted giving expert editors limited ability to improve the articles. IZAK (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Large number of synagogue article deletion proposals. IZAK (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Followup comment. Epeefleche has done an impressive amount of work finding sourced information about this temple and adding it the article. My "delete" opinion is, however, unchanged. The fact that the temple maintenance schedule (typical contents are specifications on when each year to get the parking lot swept and the Torah cover dry-cleaned) is reproduced in a published book on synagogue operation does not make this synagogue notable. The existence of a colorful mural in the school does not make it notable; this is not a mural by a famous artist, but the kind of run-of-the-mill mural that every nonnotable elementary school in my city has. Piloting the use of a workbook is laudable, but does not make the synagogue notable. The entire synagogue spending a day removing graffiti in 1995 also is laudable, but it's a run-of-the-mill action for a religious organization (unfortunate that there's so much of this kind of work to be done in the world!), and the fact that it is documented in a news article available online does not make the synagogue notable. A run-of-the-mill synagogue. --Orlady (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Orlady. Question -- if you personally find something non-notable, but an RS devotes an entire article to it, per wp guidelines would you not be constrained (whatever your personal views) to view it as notable? In other words -- wouldn't you agree that it is not important whether any of us editors view what the synagogue is covered for is signficant -- but rather that the synagogue has received significant coverage in RSs?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
None of that coverage is "significant" (many, many things are documented in publications that Wikipedia deems reliable sources without being significant coverage for an encyclopedia topic, and that graffiti removal day is just one example) and none of it indicates notability as described by WP:ORG. --Orlady (talk) 04:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC) Think of this another way: If your wedding announcement is published by the New York Times, with a nice little biography of you and a description of the quirky floral arrangements used at the wedding, it doesn't mean that you or your floral designer are now a notable topic for an encyclopedia article. --Orlady (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I disagree. An entire article in The Denver Post, for example, is IMHO without question significant coverage in an RS. It matters not a jot what the subject is -- if the article is on a synagogue, of course it is likely to be of a typical synagogue activity (that the RS deems worthy of a full article). Just as if it were of a baseball player, in the normal course it would be of his normal activity. GNG does not allow for editor POV to interfere with the strictures of the guideline, and insert (where it is not written) that the subject of the full-length RS article has to be one that the editor thinks is worth the RS covering in the first place. We avoid that, by having a guideline -- GNG (which says: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article")-- that focuses on significant RS coverage, not coverage by an RS of a significant (in the editor's view) subject. With all due respect.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Epeefleche, it sounds like you and Orlady have a differing interpretation of WP:NOTNEWS which states, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion. For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." It would strike me that Orlady is correct in this instance, and that a graffiti removal day falls under WP:NOTNEWS and is not notable enough for inclusion. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. We do have a difference of view, but it is over GNG, and whether the subject of the article by an RS need be on a subject that an editor thinks is a significant subject. WP:NOTNEWS is not about full articles in RSs -- it is about things such as routine wedding announcements and sports scores. This is a full article; quite a different animal altogether.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Well, in addition to you having differing views with Orlady, you and I appear to have differing views of the application of NOTNEWS. But that is not worth arguing as it appears we will not reach agreement on our interpretations of what the difference between being reported in the news and being a notable event, regardless of which policy you feel applies. I reiterate that not everything in the news is notable enough to be written in a Wikipedia article (or have an entire article written about it). ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Denver Post articles I've seen are very much in the nature of routine coverage, specifically routine coverage on the newspaper religion page. In 2011 this may not be so common, but back in 1995 (when the graffiti cleanup story ran), most newspapers employed reporters who wrote feature stories about local churches every week, telling about Lutherans who volunteered at a soup kitchen, or a new meditation garden at the Episcopal Church, or the Baptists who were sponsoring several refugee families, or new stained glass windows in the Catholic church, or the efforts of local Hindus to educate their American-born children about a Hindu holiday observance. I can still find stories like these in my local paper (though not as many as there were in 1995) to show you how commonplace this kind of story is. This is routine run-of-the-mill garden-variety newspaper content, not something that belongs in Wikipedia, and the Denver Post content about this synagogue falls exactly within this pattern. --Orlady (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Denver Post article I pointed to is a full article, as Orlady says -- a "feature story" (note: feature stories are anything but routine; they even have a Pulitzer Prize awarded for the best of them ... see the Pulitzer Prize for Feature Writing; the Pulitzer does not, of course, give out any prizes for routine coverage, such as routine wedding announcements and sports scores). Clearly distinguishable from a run-of-the-mill routine reference such as NOTNEWS refers to. Those are references such as one-line "synagogue x is holding services Friday". This is nothing of the sort.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Considering the coverage in the Denver Post I'd have to agree with Epeefleche that this meets the WP:GNG. Qrsdogg (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per the coverage, which reflects notability, as most of the commenters here have indicated. As mentioned above, for example, full-length feature articles in top-level RSs are anything but "routine, trivial coverage", and to the extent that any delete !votes are based on that thinking, they do not to me seem to follow wp guidance on the matter.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Epeefleche, which Denver Post article are you referring to? Is it [104] where this synagogue are reported as planning community service tasks? Or [105] where this synagogue has a passing mention about building a garden? Could you clarify which reliable source coverage you are hanging your position on more specifically? ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 21:15, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Which one is that? The only two I see in the article are the two listed above. Which one are you referring to? It would be helpful if you clarified as clearly it is a major factor in your reasoning and perhaps that would make the strength of your conviction on this issue a bit clearer to those of us who don't understand it. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Virginia Culver (September 9, 1995). "Temple members plan good-deed day; They will fulfill a mitzvah with 40 projects". Denver Post. I hope that will be helpful. I've noticed that recently you seem to have expressed non-consensus views as to the notability of synagogues on a number of articles (as here, where 2/3 of the !voters have a view that differs from yours). Perhaps taking a closer look at the articles, and the views expressed by the majority in those discussions (whose take differs from yours), will be helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is helpful to know that you were just talking about the article that discusses planned community service tasks in the local paper. Epeefleche, I will avoid your personal comments, as those are not appropriate to engage in a discussion over, and will instead focus on the content of this article and the content of the source you are citing as the primary example of notability. The Culver article is routine coverage of a local event. It does not establish notability. I had read it before, but assumed that couldn't be the article you are citing as a Pulitzer Prize parallel article. It clearly is just routine non-notable coverage. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 07:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, the Denver Post reported that the synagogue held a service day in 1995 and installed a meditation garden in 2003. Those are the kinds of standard things that local religious organizations do on a routine basis and get reported as "feature stories" (also known as "human interest articles" or "light journalism" -- not to be confused with "featured stories") in local newspapers all over America (or did back when newspapers had reporters on staff). Here are some similar stories I found on the websites of daily newspapers in my area: Local church stages an Easter puppet show, Local church collects shoes for charity, Several local churches support community gardens, and Children sell lemonade to help Joplin earthquake victims. None of these stories makes their topics notable for purposes of an encyclopedia -- this stuff is ubiquitous. --Orlady (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While AfDs are not votes, your math is still quite funny. Four editors (including you) have commented on the Denver Post articles. Two have stated they fall under WP:NOTNEWS and constitute routine coverage not implying notability. Two (one of which is you) have stated that they do. That does not sound like consensus to me at all. While the Denver Post is a large paper, for the subject of this article, and the type of coverage it received, this still appears like a local story about a non-notable routine event. If the Denver Post reported about such activities for a synagogue in another state perhaps it would seem a bit more notable. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reference it to the 2-1 consensus (6 !voting keep; 3 !voting delete) that the sources that we are considering sufficiently support the fact that the subject of this article is notable. Most of those editors have, wisely, moved on after expressing their view, while I've stayed behind to chat. But I'll move on as well, at this point, as there seems to be little more to say.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Though there was a small majority of keepers, I find the deleters arguments to be stronger. I have read each of the sources, and none of the independent sources address the subject directly and in detail. What we have are specific facts about, and aspects of the work of, the subject that are sourced. Putting these sources together has led many editors to judge that WP:GNG has been met. It could be argued that this is a form of synthesis. Though there is a school of thought that this is what the notability guidelines should say, it is not what they currently say, and this is not the place to change them. Having said that, it is not my role to substitute my judgement for that of the community nor to cast a supervote. Hence I regard 'no consensus' as a fair summary of the discussion. TerriersFan (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temple Sinai (Portsmouth, Virginia)

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

Non-notable congregation. Basket of Puppies 08:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This appears to be a run of the mill Synagogue that fails to have any specific notability per WP:NONPROFIT or WP:GNG. It makes no claims of notability in the article itself. I also tried to find any evidence of it being a nationally famous local organization, but failed to. I have also found no evidence of particularly unique longevity, size of membership, major achievements, or prominent scandals. In terms of GNG, I am unable to find significant reliable source coverage for any general factors either. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article has sources and seems notable to me, especially for the Portsmouth, VA area. Tinton5 (talk) 23:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As boring as it was in August 2010. Chesdovi (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a feeling user:BasketofPuppies does not like synagogue pages on here, as I notice he marked five synagogue pages in a row, made by user Jayjg. Not to mention these articles are sourced and some even have photos; they could def be expanded, but I have a funny feeling about this user. Tinton5 (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tinton, please clarify your claim "made by user Jayjg". None of them were created by Jayjg? Chesdovi (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes some of them were. In my opinion, you are attacking us Jewish editors, by nominating multiple articles for deletion that deal with synagogues, which are well sourced of that matter. Tinton5 (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the pages nominated have not been created by Jayjg. Chesdovi (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you are attacking us Jewish editors Are you being serious? Basket of Puppies 18:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tinton, please don't personalize things. There's no evidence that Basket has intention to "attack" any editors of any group. Nominating a large number of articles in a single subject, while potentially disruptive, does not mean one somehow dislikes or wants to attack people in that group. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ignore his comment Basket of Puppies. Tinton is a sensitive soul. He is fustrated, that's all. Chesdovi (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To basket: Very serious. To Josh: You don't know the half of it. Out of nowhere, ( I won't mention any names), but some users have been marking several pages for deletion, even though these pages have been up for months and years. And to Cesdovi: User:Jayg did in fact create these pages, not this one however. Just look at the bottom User talk:Jayjg. Notice the five synagogues he created and click on those, then check the page's edit history. Scroll down and the first name you will see is User:Jayjg, from 2008. Freakin 2008. And all of a sudden in 2011 there are deletion notices on several synagogues, which will soon evaporate as soon as other willing editors, like myself will help save these pages, by adding sources and establishing notability, which we have been doing all along. By the way, I was frustrated, not anymore, since we will be able to keep a majority of these pages on here. Tinton5 (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I thought you were referring to the 5 currently at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism. As far as I can recall, many of Jayjg's first such articles were also nominated for deletion. He spent much, much hard work and laborious hours to save them all! Chesdovi (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tinton, this is an extremely serious accusation. You have clearly stated that I am editing against a class or group of people, in this case Jews. I will open a discussion at the appropriate administrative noticeboard in order to obtain administrative intervention. Basket of Puppies 18:17, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you gotta do. Also, your nominations for deletion have been declined by JoshuaZ for User:Jayjg's five pages. That's proof right there. You had no reason to hinder the editing process. Tinton5 (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:NOTDIR/WP:ORG per lack of specific notability. The only cites appear to be that it exists and does exactly the same stuff that pretty much every other congregation does (belong to its parent body and interact with others in it, generic help-the-disadvantaged, etc.). The only claim of notability is via inheritance from participation in a notable multicongregation school program. That could be a viable article (schools are often notable, and often have independent coverage especially per claims of being "award-winning" and involved in community outreach). Alternately, I could maybe envision an article about the Jewish community in this town if there are multiple congregations and other organizations, public projects, etc. DMacks (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, don't see any particular assertion of notability in the article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing in the article hints at notability -- no assertion of notability and no evidence thereof. Run-of-the-mill synagogue, AFAICT. --Orlady (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Large number of synagogue article deletion proposals. IZAK (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never in the history of synagogue articles on WP have so many articles about Jewish synagogues been nominated for deletion within days starting from here to those he has attacked so far: [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], plus requesting speedy deletion of many others: [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128] (and more such efforts) within so short a span of time by one user, i.e. Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs)}. How much longer will this go on and be tolerated? This type of gung-ho come-what-may rigid "enforcement" deletionism automatically undermines WP:CONSENSUS-building and is bound to lead to future WP:EDITWARRING as more editors with a genuine interest in this topic feel violated and outraged as it undermines WP:AGF when such a wave of actions are conducted giving expert editors limited ability to improve the articles. IZAK (talk) 23:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per IZAK...Modernist (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. The page has the basic references for notability in place and now needs some filling in from someone who has access to offline books. Yoninah (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per GNG. As the majority of those !voting have already pointed out, there is sufficient RS coverage of this synagogue to reflect notability. I am encouraged by nom's commitment, expressed elsewhere, to perform a wp:before search in the future, and thank him for indicating that he will do so.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per WP:GNG and IZAK. Also believe that the Notability guideline should be amended to automatically allow/include articles on any synagogue, church, mosque, Masonic temple or other place of worship in continuous operation for 50 years or more. --Kenatipo speak! 20:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not seeing the sourcing that is supposed to qualify this under the GNG. I see that Kenatipo is asserting that it ought to pass WP:ORG for being more than 50 years old, but this one AfD discussion is not a good place to create a new guideline (and many of us would disagree with that proposal). Other than age, I don't see what it is about this synagogue that's supposed to make it notable. The article says Temple Sinai "emphasizes religious education and service to the community through social action," has formed a combined religious school program with another synagogue, "provides food for the hungry and shelter for the homeless," and engages in pulpit exchanges with yet another synagogue -- all of these are the kinds of routine, run-of-the-mill things that local religious organizations do, not a basis for notability. --Orlady (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That mis-states what Kenatipo said, I believe.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malixous

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

Non-notable show. Rcsprinter (talk) 08:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Rcsprinter (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only Dads

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

Article about a non-notable charity website written by its creator: the two references provided focus on the socio-economic problem of being a single dad; the charity website itself gets only a one-word mention and link and is not covered directly and in detail. PROD-tag was removed without explanation, possibly by mistake? ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 08:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I accidentally removed the PROD tag when cleaning up/wikifying the article - I have no association with the organisation and haven't checked any sources for notability yet. XXX antiuser eh? 08:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Are we being for real?. How did this go from a SD request to an AFD?. I was relieved when I saw TreasuryTag had already tag it for SD as this clearly meets CSD A7. Then it came the PROD out of nowhere by the same person who tag it. Then an AFD? Really? It almost seems as the nom is trying to protect the article. --Legion fi (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Once the article creator added a couple of sources, it no longer met A7, which requires that there is no assertion of notability. They did make an attempt. Please assume good faith in future. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 08:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Clearly meets CSD A7. Also, original author has shown a clear conflict of interest with the subject. --Legion fi (talk) 08:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This does not seem to meet CSD:A7: "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.". The article has references and the CSD is purposefully narrow. I'll take the blame for goofing it and removing the PROD. XXX antiuser eh? 08:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only references I can find are the ones in the article (basically just a mention of the website - the articles are about the issue of fathers raising kids on their own) and one in This is South Devon about an 'advice clinic' they ran in 2008, and appears to be based on a press release (I didn't see anything after that). There does not appear to be the significant coverage of this organisation at reliable independent sources, and nothing to indicate that this worthy charity is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HyperTunnel

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

Product with no evidence of notability. The article has no references. Searching for HyperTunnel AND HyperTransport (to focus on this product instead of different products with the same name) on Google Web returns 155 results. A large number are Wikipedia mirrors and the rest are not reliable sources that can evidence notability. Using the same query, Google News and Books returns no results, while Scholar returns one thesis with what appears to be a passing mention. Rilak (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Westgarth, Victoria. m.o.p 03:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Westgarth Primary School

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

The article fails to address WP:ORG or WP:GNG and WP:NHS does not apply for primary schools. The article had a PROD in 2007 which was removed without a clear rationale. Fæ (talk) 07:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 16:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ECB AT91

edit
ECB AT91 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article's subject fails to meet WP:N. The article has three external links. The first link is to the subject's developer and therefore is a primary source, which cannot evidence notability. The second link is to a Linux Devices news article, which is an independent and reliable secondary source. The news article however does not go towards indicating notability because it is not significant coverage as it is only 457 words long. The article also mentions the subject's developers have published a paper about the subject. While the paper is a primary source, it could be argued that it could contribute towards notability if it was published in a prominent venue and received enough attention. This is not the case. The paper does not appear to have been published at a conference or journal judging from its appearance. The third link is also to Linux Devices article. Again this article does not go towards indicating notability because the coverage is brief. The article's subject is covered in the context of benchmarking different application binary interfaces. The article's subject just happened to be the hardware on which the benchmarking was performed. Searching for "ECB AT91" on Google Web returned 461 "unique" results, most of which are mirrors of the Wikipedia article; News, no results; Books, three books which are copies of Wikipedia; and Scholar, two papers, both with no citations, and one that is a self citation. Rilak (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Detete looks like an interesting graduate student project from five years ago. If it were used in notable application could have been notable, but did not seem to be. W Nowicki (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 16:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Buck

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

A Leo Buck who is a gay entertainment reporter does apparently exist (see http://www.youtube.com/user/villagegaytv and http://www.campkc.com/campkc-author.php?User_ID=191) but the claims of this article cannot be verified and he does not appear to have received coverage in any reliable sources. Fences&Windows 07:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 07:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 07:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Fences&Windows 07:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. joe deckertalk to me 16:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Finance

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

Prod removed by article's author. This looks to me like original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as clearly a notable topic. Two books on the subject, 39 hits on Google Scholar for articles with the phrase in the title: 200 articles and 780 books refer to the phrase. If the article is OR, then it can be fixed. Sergeant Cribb (talk) 17:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. joe deckertalk to me 16:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kao Denero

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

BLP that has been here unsourced for nearly three years. Appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources. The majority of coverage found was from 'Sierra Express Media' ([129], [130]) which looks dubious as a reliable source and one of the articles is taken from another site. There are also these brief mentions: this and this. If anyone can find sources for the article, great, but I don't think we can keep this without reliable sourcing. Michig (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force / Aqua Unit Patrol Squad 1 characters. If anyone would like to merge the articles (preferably a condensed version), feel free to.

I'm closing this AfD (and the Frylock one) as redirect. Now, before someone screams, "But consensus was to keep," let me remind everyone that AfD is not a poll - outcomes are reached by evaluating arguments and sources, not a simple head count. While Meatwad is notable within the series, he doesn't meet the GNG; there are no sources that discuss his character directly (I went through each source present on the main article at this time). Can't find anything elsewhere that's not a blog post or forum thread. If sources turn up, we can reinstate the article. Any questions are welcome on my talk page. m.o.p 04:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meatwad

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

This not meet the article's notability guidelines for fictional characters, similar to Brock Samson, Doctor Thaddeus Venture and rest of The Venture Bros. characters which I've nominated for deletion due lack of sources and notability. Fails WP:GNG. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 06:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The topic is notable, being discussed in detail in sources such as Studies in American humor, Drawn to television: prime-time animation from the Flintstones to the Family Guy and Television cartoon shows: an illustrated encyclopedia. The material should therefore be kept in accordance with our editing policy. Warden (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I've heard of Meatwad, and looked up Frylock just the other day. Wiwaxia (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that this is one of the main characters of a notable TV series, the only options are 1) keep as a separate article; or 2) redirect (with or without merging) to the series' list of characters. It should have been dealt with through normal editing and discussion instead of being taken to AFD. postdlf (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: One phenomenon I've frequently seen on Wikipedia is that someone will claim a topic is non-notable without first doing a search for sources. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources here: a Google Books search for "Frylock", for instance, turns up Studies in American Humor; Dracula in Visual Media; Atlanta Magazine; Drawn to Television, and so on. Also, Wikipedia uses the convention of splitting off articles on major characters from articles on television shows so the main articles don't become too long. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force / Aqua Unit Patrol Squad 1 characters. I welcome a selective merge of relevant content.

I'm closing this AfD (and the Meatwad one) as redirect. Now, before someone screams, "But consensus was to keep," let me remind everyone that AfD is not a poll - outcomes are reached by evaluating arguments and sources, not a simple head count. While Frylock is notable within the series, he doesn't meet the GNG; there are no sources that discuss his character directly (I went through each source present on the main article at this time). Can't find anything elsewhere that's not a blog post or forum thread. If sources turn up, we can reinstate the article. Any questions are welcome on my talk page. m.o.p 04:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frylock

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

Clearly, this not meet the article's notability guidelines for fictional characters. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 06:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • *Keep Cleary this topic is notable, being discussed in detail in sources such as Studies in American humor, Drawn to television: prime-time animation from the Flintstones to the Family Guy, Encyclopedia of television shows, 1925 through 2007 and Television cartoon shows: an illustrated encyclopedia. The material should therefore be kept in accordance with our editing policy. Warden (talk) 06:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that this is one of the main characters of a notable TV series, the only options are 1) keep as a separate article; or 2) redirect (with or without merging) to the series' list of characters. It should have been dealt with through normal editing and discussion instead of being taken to AFD. postdlf (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: One phenomenon I've frequently seen on Wikipedia is that someone will claim a topic is non-notable without first doing a search for sources. There are plenty of reliable secondary sources here: a Google Books search for "Frylock", for instance, turns up Studies in American Humor; Dracula in Visual Media; Atlanta Magazine; Drawn to Television, and so on. Also, Wikipedia uses the convention of splitting off articles on major characters from articles on television shows so the main articles don't become too long. Guideline & Policy Wonk (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. A strong policy discussion here, though a few unnecessary segues. I read the rough consensus finding that the event was significant enough and Bacos's role sufficiently substantial to except the article from BLP1E.--Kubigula (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Bacos

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

Fails BLP1E. The actual event is covered, and covered well, at Operation Entebbe. There are no sources about this person outside of ones discussing him in relation to the hijacking and the raid. Nableezy 04:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. BLP1E states that:

    "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented .... a separate biography may be appropriate. The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources."

    Such is the case here. The event is without question significant. His role is substantial, and well-documented, and the coverage is persistent over time (see the documentation in these 104 books from 1976-2010,[131] these 19 new articles between 1994 and 2011,[132][133] as well as additional coverage on various ghits.[134][135] In addition, though they are related, there are three events here -- the hijacking (including the captain's refusal to leave his Jewish passengers), the captain's later suspension and admonishment by Air France, and the captain's later award for heroism.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason why the example that BLP1E gives as an appropriate exemption to the rule is John Hinckley. In that case, the person is the central figure in the event, and he himself has been subject of numerous in-depth works. That isnt the case here. There are no in-depth biographies of the person, and he was not the central figure of the event. nableezy - 05:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason that the rule clearly states what the standard is for the exemption. The reason? So editors don't mis-state the rule. The rule is, as indicated above, "the event is significant", "the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented", and "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." This clearly meets that. (As does Hinckley's).
We of course don't take the example used in a rule, and from the example concoct an entire new set of criteria that is different from the criteria stated in the rule itself. That's like the following: "Rule: A citizen if the US is a person who is a citizen of the US, such as President Obama". Nableezy "interpretation" -- The reason the rule gave Obama as an example is that to be a citizen of the US, one must be President of the US". Clearly, that's not how it works.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is quite the exaggeration you made, some would even say that it an absurd way to read my comments. If you could write a biographical article on the subject I wouldnt have a problem with it. The thing is, you cant. And you cant because sources havent covered him. For example, when was he born? In what city? Where did he go to school, when did he become a pilot, how long was he flying prior to the hijacking? The article is not a biography of Bacos, it is simply a recounting of the hijacking, which already is covered in the article on the hijacking. The number of books that contain the words Michel Bacos is not indicative of the notability of Michel Bacos. What matters is how they cover him. They dont cover him in any depth at all. Which is why we dont have a biography of Becos, we have another article, a sub-par one I might add, on an event that already has a well written article. But the most important part of this comment is this; please dont attribute arguments to me that I have not made. It is intellectually dishonest for you to do so. Thank you for your cooperation. nableezy - 10:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You again ignore the wp guideline. And simply make up your own. We follow the wp guideline, however, and therefore consider the person notable if "the event is significant", "the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented", and "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Which is clearly the case here. We don't follow some made-up guideline you concoct in your effort to delete the article, along the lines of "the article must indicate his date of birth" (though the article actually does reflect that, now), or "the article must indicate how long he was flying prior to the event". By having editors follow wp guidelines, and not concoct their own, we lessen the possibility of POV-creep.
I note that nom made similar nominations to delete articles for BLP1E in the past 6 months at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walid Husayin and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asmaa Mahfouz, and that those articles were kept per community consensus. Nom may wish to reconsider whether his understanding of the guideline is at odds with that of the community consensus.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Epeefleche and he meets WP:GNG because of the coverage he received.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 09:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Epeefleche and Nipson - this individual meets WP:GNG, and is a central figure in the event. The fact that he was later reprimanded as a consequence of his heroic actions is a separately covered event and therefore this person is not notable for a single event. The Jerusalem Post article from 2006 shows persistent coverage . Marokwitz (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At least two of the hijackers "two Germans from the German Revolutionary Cells—Wilfried Böse and Brigitte Kuhlmann" have their own articles for their involvement in this affair. In light of that, how can you justify not giving this pilot his own article? Notorious is ok but heroic is not? Bidyone (talk) 14:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC) — Bidyone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • delete There is nothing in this article that doesn't belong in Operation Entebbe. This article isn't a biography at all: where are the details about the rest of his life, his education, his family, his career? When and where was he born? Is he still alive? If not, when did he die? Is there anything he is notable for other than this incident and its aftermath? (By the way, the argument above about "heroic" or "notorious" is irrelevant - we have many articles about such loveable characters as Adolf Hitler, Adolf Eichmann, Islam Karimov, Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, Alisher Usmanov, Zine El Abidine Ben Ali and many others. The two Germans have articles because they founded RZ, so they are notable for more than just this incident.) Why single out just the captain - the rest of the crew also showed the same courage in staying behind? And, I might add, if you want to honour this man, he deserves a much better article than this pile of sloppy editing. If a proper biography can be written answering these questions, and showing why he is notable for something in addition to this incident, then it can be kept, otherwise it should be deleted, with any useful and relevant info being added to Operation Entebbe. --NSH001 (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't want to dismiss the bravery of Michel Bacos but his contribution in this affair was essentially passive. Had he done something exceptionally skillfull, or taken actions which substantively affected the outcome of the event, it might be different, but logically his part belongs in the Entebbe story. I don't think anyone is suggesting he be written out, and as a user that is where I should expect to find him, and if I were searching for him in Wikipedia that is where I ought to be directed. As pointed out, there isn't really a biography of him as such and no reason has been advanced for his having one independently of the account of this event, so users gain nothing from having to click through from one article to another. The coverage of him in independent sources results from the fact that he happened to be the unfortunate pilot who was flying that plane, and the logic of the not inherited and one event rules is that he should not be considered independently notable. --AJHingston (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes to closing admin:
  1. In accordance to Wikipedia:Notability (people), "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate."
  2. Bacos was awarded the National Order of the Legion of Honour, which is the highest french award. According to notability guidelines, a person is notable if "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Marokwitz (talk) 11:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Receipt of major awards from multiple countries, with extensive and continuing coverage in about two dozen reliable and verifiable sources in the years after the hijacking more than exceeds any basic standard of notability. Notability has nothing to do with being "skillful" (let alone being "exceptionally" so) and that his actions might somehow be deemed passive does not diminish notability. There have been dozens of major hijackings over the decades, and few pilots other than Bacos have articles, because most of them played no ongoing role and received no meaningful coverage about their role. Wikipedia's definition of notability rests on coverage in appropriate sources, and there has been no meaningful rebuttal of these sources. Alansohn (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment although the article has improved, it is still nothing more than a report of the event and its aftermath. Everything in this article can be, and mostly already is, covered in Operation Entebbe. It still fails BLP1E. --NSH001 (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the sources that discuss Bacos, and not this event? Why isn't there any detail about the controversy surrounding his disciplining by Air France? (Surely there must have been some controversy?) Where are the sources talking about the effect on his life and his family? Where are the basic biographical details? I don't see how there can be "meaningful coverage" to justify a separate article, unless at least some of these questions can be answered. --NSH001 (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Epeeflech, Marokwitz, Alansohn, Wikipedia:Notability (people). Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Id like to make one note before I bid you all farewell. I dont think WP:BIO1E applies, what counts here is BLP1E. If there is some evidence that this person is no longer living I would withdraw the nomination, but as no such evidence exists I think we have to recognize that the standards of BLP1E , part of a policy (WP:BLP), which are a bit more stringent than BIO1E, which is part of a guideline (WP:Notability (people)), are what counts here. I dont think there is evidence that the subject meets any reasonable interpretation of the requirements of BLP1E, and the one offered above by Ep would essentially turn that part of the policy into nothing as all people notable for a single event are covered in the coverage of that event. nableezy - 05:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've mis-stated what I quoted the guideline as requiring. It is not--as you suggest--that I said that the exception applies if "people ... are covered in the coverage of that event". Instead, the wp guideline considers the person notable if "the event is significant", "the individual's role within it is substantial and well-documented", and "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Which is clearly the case here.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Epeefleche and Alansohn. The taking of Entebbe was a major historic event. The subject's role was instantly recognized as substantial. He was awarded France's highest honor, and one of the two top honors given to good Gentiles by the State of Israel. The 1-shot rule carves out a solid exception for well-known heroes who receive major accolades, and whose lives are captued on film, in books, texts, etc., as in this case. I can't see how he's not notable. Bearian (talk) 13:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Operation Entebbe. I can see the argument to his significance in the event, but I fail to see where the article subject meets the basic notability criteria. None of the sources listed in the article, from what I can tell, makes him the "subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The subject of the sources listed revolve around Operation Entebbe or the hijacking event, not explicitly Bacos. Barkeep Chat | $ 16:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Notability. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Marokwitz (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, but you'd be pretty hard pressed to say that any of the sources listed would qualify as significant coverage of Bacos. Outside of this source, Bacos' name is never brought up more than 3 times, usually singularly. I would argue he borderlines on just a trivial mention on a particular event in the rest of the sources. Barkeep Chat | $ 18:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I’ll say precisely what is on my mind here. This one isn’t even close. Mirroring the comments of some of the above, this story was highly notable and this aspect of it is clearly sufficiently notable in its own right. I think too many AfDs related to terrorism are being brought up unnecessarily and this may be a phenomenon borne out some editors trying to inject their own personal feelings and sympathies into Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What the hell does some editors trying to inject their own personal feelings and sympathies into Wikipedia mean? What "aspect" of the event is this supposed biography covering? nableezy - 18:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After reading your splendid intensive “hell” here, I looked above and can clearly see that you seem fond of confrontational behavior on Wikipedia, with language like “absurd way to read my comments” and “exaggeration you made”. The en‑version of Wikipedia doesn’t need so much wiki‑drama. And that’s just this page. I hope you grok the mix of what you’re reading on this page, take it to heart, and dial the thermostat down a bit. Goodbye and happy editing. Greg L (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia also does not need editors making wild accusations and then refusing to back them up. Your line on editors trying to inject their own personal feelings and sympathies into Wikipedia is wildly inappropriate and vastly more uncivil than anything I have written here, including what the hell. You have attributed motives to others and have refused to provide evidence. Thanks for that, I very much appreciate having such ludicrous accusations made against me. Though I find it much more satisfying when a user has the decency to provide evidence for their statements. nableezy - 19:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, after that tirade, the very next two edits you made at Talk:Geography of Israel was this ∆ edit to prove me all wrong?? Can you make this any easier for me? I’m just saying that it is unfortunate that Wikipedia is such a battleground for this sort of thing. This AfD is part of that wiki‑drama, it wasn’t a close call, and it is all quite tedious. Your edit history, which I just now looked at seems as if you are a single-purpose editor and I see you are currently the subject of an ANI request for enforcement. Greg L (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you just keep going. Explain exactly what you mean by editors trying to inject their own personal feelings and sympathies into Wikipedia as it relates to this AfD. Not what you think if an edit to another talk page on a completely unrelated topic, but what you meant by that inflammatory comment. And unless you you would like me to comment on your edit history, I kindly request you not comment on mine. It is both irrelevant to this AfD and it is inaccurate. Bye. nableezy - 20:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Michel Bacos article is not a Michel Bacos article at all. It is just describing events pertaining to the Air France Flight 139 article. In fact the reason for delete seems even obvious to those who voted to keep. They all argued along the line of "this story was highly notable ..." I agree this story is notable. That is why this story has an article. We are just arguing it shouldn't have two articles. If anyone feels that Michel Bacos deserves an article, then by all means write one. The current Michel Bacos article is currently 100% pertaining to Operation Entebbe and nothing else. Poyani (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This is an invalid deletion reason. Deletion is based on whether the person is notable or not for his own article. And according to Wikipedia notability policies he certainly is, based on the ongoing coverage by reliable sources from 1976 to the present day, and winning major awards. Bacos was awarded, among the rest, the National Order of the Legion of Honour, which is the highest french award. According to notability guidelines, a person is notable if "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for one several times". Marokwitz (talk) 07:22, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, that this is, in principle, a valid deletion reason, is recognised under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion A10: "Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic." If it weren't for the "recently created" provision, it would, in my opinion, be a candidate for speedy deletion, except of course that the title would indeed be a plausible redirect to Operation Entebbe. I hope someone can write a proper article on Michel Bacos. That no-one has yet managed to do so indicates that the necessary sources do not exist, so it should be deleted or redirected. --NSH001 (talk) 09:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Marokwitz - what I described is a Content Fork which is a reason for deletion. The person is clearly not notable since no one here can even write an article on him. There simply isn't any information about this person aside from his involvement in Air France Flight 139 Hijack. Poyani (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you are talking about. Aside from his involvement in Air France Flight 139 Hijack, the article contains information about his personal life, awards that he received, suspension by Air France, films that he was featured in. And in any case the contents of this article are irrelevant to deletion. A person who had a major role in a significant historical event, is covered with non trivial mentions in reliable sources for decades, received multiple major and well known awards, and was featured in several movies, is automatically notable for his own article, period. Marokwitz (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Michel Bacos is far less notable than Jason Dahl (who is only a redirect) using any metric. Describing Operation Entebbe as a "significant historical event" is a serious stretch. Describing his part in it as a "major role" is even more of a stretch. The notion that he is "a person who had a major role in a significant historical event" is simply astonishing! Poyani (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The claim "there is nothing here that isn't about Operation Entebbe" is plainly false, if you care to read the article. So we should not ignore all rules. Marokwitz (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other than his marital status, his city of residence, and the number of grandchildren he has, what is there that is not about Operation Entebbe? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Miniter

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

I see no reason whatsoever for giving Richard Miniter Wikipedia page status. His accomplishments were extremely minor, and he hasn't done anything for quite a while. He was nothing but a minor Bush-era neo-con journalist who published a couple of minor books and was involved in a couple of lawsuits. If anyone wants to actually justify why this page should stay, I'd be happy to debate with that person. -217.136.87.133 (talk) 01:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination completed on behalf of the anon.-gadfium 04:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Arguing that a page should be deleted because "he hasn't done anything for quite a while" is very weak because notability is not temporary and we have probably hundreds of thousands of articles about people who haven't done anything in a while. This is an encyclopedia, not People magazine. As for Miniter, one of his books appeared on the top ten nonfiction New York Times bestseller list. Personally, I don't like his politics much, but he is (or was) notable. There is plenty of discussion about him and his books and articles in reliable sources, both pro and con. Cullen328 (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:AUTHOR is the relevant guideline to look at to decide whether the article should be kept or not. It's not clear at the moment that there has been enough significant coverage of him to meet WP:BIO, so it really boils down to whether sources can be found to satisfy part of WP:AUTHOR. The closing admin may also like to be aware that IPs have a history off attacking the article, so the nomination may not be in good faith. SmartSE (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cullen328, I understand where you're coming from. I don't believe, however, that Miniter is relevant enough as media personalities go to warrant a Wikipedia page - and while I'm glad that his page no longer reads like an advertisement, which was the case previously, it's still a real stretch to suggest that a minor media commentator from a few years ago with one moderately successful book is in any way worthy of Wikipedia article status. By that measure, my dad also deserves a Wikipedia article about himself. 217.136.80.232 (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BK and WP:AUTHOR per WP:RS. Qworty (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Cullen328 points out, notability is not temporary. Miniter has been the subject of multiple articles in a number of reliable sources independent from him, and the available sources are adequate to compose a useful, well-sourced encyclopedia article. Miniter is also the author of multiple books that have landed on the New York Times bestselling non-fiction list, and he is notable enough that a dispute between Miniter, three fellow authors, and their shared publisher was covered by the New York Times. Seems like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination to me. DickClarkMises (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A quick Google search led me to Miniter's own website, which includes this list of media coverage of his work, book reviews, interviews with him that others have published, etc. Although this self-published list isn't itself useful as a source for establishing notability, it is useful for finding numerous sources which I believe do establish it. The question of Miniter's notability doesn't even seem like a close call to me, with substantial coverage in the NYT, Forbes, Washington Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Sun-Times, and many others. DickClarkMises (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RunFootball

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

Can't find any evidence of third party coverage. High review numbers on some sites seem to be lots of people saying "Add me" and giving the game five stars. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 04:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barry Lynes

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

Fails WP:BIO; no evidence of notability in intellectually independent, reliable secondary sources. The only available reliable source is a brief mention by the American Cancer Society, which dismissed Lynes' book as overwrought conspiracism. The prior AfD was closed as no consensus (which I think was a bit generous), on the basis of claimed Google Books hits. In the intervening years, there has been no progress toward actually incorporating any independent, reliable sources. At this point the article has had years to be brought up to our notability criteria and hasn't been (I don't think it can be, given the lack of suitable sources), and thus I'm bringing it back here. MastCell Talk 21:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 02:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While this is a very close call, in my opinion Barry Lynes meets WP:AUTHOR. One of the criteria by which WP:AUTHOR can be met is if the person wrote a book that was "subject ... of multiple independent ... reviews." I can several independent reviews, for example: [136] [137]. Another way the notablity requirement can be met is if "the person is known for originating a significant new ... theory" - and I believe this requirement has been met. Although, again, this is only narrowly met, "Barry Lynes" a Google books search shows a book saying that "The Rife Report by Barry Lynes [is] investigative journalism at its best" and the comments by the American Cancer Society show that his theory has gained some significant coverage. - EdoDodo talk 20:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lynes did not originate any new theories (he resurrected the long-since-discredited claims of Royal Rife). His work has not been the subject of multiple independent reviews by independent, reliable sources (the only reliably sourced review is from the American Cancer Society). MastCell Talk 22:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fatih Buzgan

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

Non-notable athlete. Only claim of notability is holding "Turkey's unofficial day/distance record by mountain bike." While I don't feel that an unofficial record can be used to establish notability, the issue is that the record doesn't seem to be verifiable. Google News produces no results and either does Google News Archive. Google returns nothing but a few blog postings. The only thing I did find is a listing of athletes involved in the Union Cycliste Internationale in which the subject is ranked below 1700 (doesn't actually have a ranking).

If I had to guess, this is an autobiographical puff piece. The only claim is dubious and any information about the individual seems to show that he's not particularly notable. OlYellerTalktome 21:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm ignoring his running marathons. Although included in the article, there's no indication that he has competed beyond the national level. I am also ignoring the "unofficial record". The article asserts its unofficial because the the bike used is non-conformant to the rules. Well, makes it not a record, not unofficial. In any case, it's an unverified claim. This leaves the only plausible assertion of notability being the claimed international competitions in mountain biking. There is no coverage about him that I can find. The above ranking sheet shows him with no ranking and no points. There is no indication of which competitions he has competed in to determine if he meets the criteria of competing at the top level of his sport. No prejudice to recreation if there is reliable documentation of notable competitions in the future. -- Whpq (talk) 19:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 02:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isabella Blake-Thomas

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

The subject fails WP:NACTOR, as she has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows. I was unable to find any sources about "Lily Rose's Garden" other than one self-published source. Perhaps if she continues her acting career, she'll be notable in the future, but as of now, she's just had minor roles. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 02:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The part of Violet Elizabeth Bott in the BBC TV four part series of Just William was a substantive role, but she is too young to have the sort of established career that the notability guidelines look for. I'm not keen on Wikipedia biographies of children anyway for a variety of reasons, but if her career does progress it may be inescapable as it is with Ramona Marquez but the threshold should be high and control tight. Aside from anything else, Ms Blake-Thomas may wish to put her career behind her. --AJHingston (talk) 13:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knock Knock (Jasmine song)

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

Fails WP:NSONGS. No sources and couldn't find anything to assert any real notability for it. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Mephtalk 16:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 02:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rolf Hans Rothermel

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

I cannot find sufficient RS coverage of this person to reflect notability. Article has been tagged for notability since 2009. Epeefleche (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Mephtalk 16:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. — Mephtalk 16:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 02:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Third Aqua Album

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

WP:HAMMER Shirt58 (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Mephtalk 16:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 02:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquin-Jesus Monteferrario

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

fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 05:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 02:27, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CBKSoft

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

I've looked over the references provided in this article carefully, and I could not find significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Perhaps some exists in Turkish? FuFoFuEd (talk) 06:45, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 02:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. As the nom says, may well be notable one day; just not yet. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Kristin Boutilier

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

I declined the speedy on this one but there's nothing in gnews. She's probably not notable yet but may be someday. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest a review of the talk page on this matter as it gives what I consider a fairly good discussion on the merits of the article. I'd like to add that while I agree there is nothing in google news at the moment, had I written this article about a month ago, there would have been a number of hits. She IS relatively new to the scene and I suppose hasn't yet figured out how to Kardashian the news stream yet.. Wiki86420 (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep You state that it meets WP:MUSICBIO for criteria 1 and 11. Can you provide some specific links for either criteria? I did find this which also states that she will be opening for Kesha. That same article was mirrored by many different news agencies such as Forbes. Ryan Vesey (talk) 03:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the following is a link to much music which is a major music video station in canada [138].. other links include the newspaper article http://www.capebretonpost.com/Arts/Entertainment/2011-05-12/article-2502302/Doing-A-O-Kay/1 as well as being featured on New York Post as someone you "must know" http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/popwrap/you_must_know_kay_lxZiqLPSVxkt6Swm7SYNDK. Wiki86420 (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It must be said that the blog on the NYPost site is not "the New York Post" itself. Blogs are opinion, not fact. It's too soon for a page, more independent assertions of fame are needed in my opinion. fr33kman 02:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC) So, delete fr33kman 20:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A singer that is on You Tube and was mentioned in two blogs (New York Post Blog and Perezhilton.com, self described as gossip columnist). She has sources from her local newspaper and local TV Station, too. Cit.: Recently signed to Universal/Interscope Records... and Her debut album is scheduled to be released this summer. WP:TOOSOON. I want her on wikipedia after she got notable, the author of this article - an experienced writer - wants her on wikipedia to get her notable. WP:RS, WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:NOTPROMOTION. --Ben Ben (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete I would like to mention that while perezhilton is a blogger, he also has a significant position on the music industry, perhaps more significant that some very well known magazines like Rolling Stone. His influence is well documented- EVEN on wikipedia itself. If I may quote the perez hilton wiki page "Hilton often promotes his favorite up-and-coming musicians by posting streams of their songs under the "Listen To This" category of his blog.[14] London-based singer Mika's 2007 rise to popular success in North America has been partially attributed to Hilton's frequent support.". Additionally, I noticed that perezhiltons page has a whole section dedicated to his own discography as he had released some single about gonorrhea. I don't understand how this could be included in his page as being an important enough contribution but an actual singer with released singles would be considered "too soon". I do take offense in your casting me as biased (that I want her on Wikipedia to get her notable), nor do I understand your mentioning that I am an experienced writer. I am an experienced writer because I write research papers for a living-- therefore I know how to cite articles. I would like to reiterate that my purpose for writing this article was that I had read something about the artist and decided to wiki her as the article was sparse on details and I noticed there was no wiki on her at all. I decided to take the initiative. I am fighting for it to remain as it took me some time to compose the article. Wiki86420 (talk) 14:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
update just named the "next pop goddess" by Fenuxe magazine based out of Atlanta. Wiki86420 (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Could you cite the sentence with "next pop goddess"? Can't find it on fenux.com. BTW Fenuxe Magazine has an article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben Ben (talk • contribs) 22:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC) [reply]
http://www.fenuxe.com/2011/06/16/interview-kay-major/ It isn't in a sentence rather it is the tagline to the article Wiki86420 (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Aehm, I never casted you as un-biased. Freudian slip?--Ben Ben (talk) 05:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly I meant biased. Wiki86420 (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I know. But for new readers this would read strange. Could you correct it in your vote? We should present an easy to go in discussion for new participants.--Ben Ben (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:MUSICBIO along with all other subject specific guidelines are only a presumptive guide that the topic meets WP:GNG and in this case I don't see that she has. The mentions listed and the article have the feel of someone trying to get noticed and not of someone who has been noticed. Wait till she has some actual success. Mtking (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • final note As the author of this entry, I feel I have provided sufficient evidence to the merits of the content as well as evidence that wikipedia has included content with less merits (vide supra). (Consistency is key!!) If this entry fails, I will probably just rewrite it every month until y'all think it is "time". Thanks for the comments Wiki86420 (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arianne

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

Article is not based on reliable, secondary sources. I found a handful of papers on Google Scholar that mention it: [139][140] but not in any significant detail. Web hits seem limited to forums and directories. I do not think this meets the notability criteria for inclusion (WP:N). Marasmusine (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 02:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Stooges. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Escaped Maniacs

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

Minor album; redirect to main The Stooges article. Orange Mike | Talk 01:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 00:48, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Lawson

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

These football players do not satisfy the criteria of WP:ATHLETE. They will be playing in an under-17 World Cup tournament, but it hasn't happened yet, and even so simply playing in such an event does not confer notability per WP:NFOOTY.

Nico Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Cardel Benbow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Melvin Blair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Troy Moo Penn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Anthony Walker (Jamaican footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Odean Clarke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Patrick Palmer (Jamaican footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Andre Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Jason Wright (Jamaican footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Omar Holness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Romario Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Romario Williams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Quante Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Alvas Powell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Zhelano Barnes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

... discospinster talk 01:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Ignoring the speedy keeps, which are unapplicable in this case (a DRV-based procedural nomination is not a speedy keep argument), and some other opinions not based in policies or guidelines, we are left with a discussion on the available sources, which are in the end either not independent, or not indepth. If sources like the first two have to be counted among the best of them, then there is a clear lack of notability, as indicated by a number of editors in this (and previous) discussions. Fram (talk) 09:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED mobile weapons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 6. Procedural nomination, I am neutral. T. Canens (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources proposed in DrV

edit
  1. Fargo, Paul (March 3, 2004). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED". Anime News Network.
  2. Fargo, Paul (August 15, 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam Seed Destiny DVD 1". Anime News Network.
  3. Kato, Hibekazu (April 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED: Peace at Last". Newtype USA. 4 (4). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 8–15. (Features Freedom Gundam and Providence Gundam)
  4. Kimlinger, Carl (May 6, 2008). "Gundam SEED Destiny: Final Plus DVD". Anime News Network.
  5. Konoh, Arata (November 2004). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED: A Fighting Chance". Newtype USA. 3 (11). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 26–29.26-29&rft.date=2004-11&rft.aulast=Konoh&rft.aufirst=Arata&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 19" class="Z3988"> (Features Strike Gundam and Skygrasper)
  6. Konoh, Arata (January 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED: Seeds of a New Age". Newtype USA. 4 (1). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 18–21.18-21&rft.date=2005-01&rft.aulast=Konoh&rft.aufirst=Arata&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 19" class="Z3988"> (Features Freedom Gundam, Justice Gundam, and Eternal)
  7. Konoh, Arata (December 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Driven by Impulse". Newtype USA. 4 (12). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 22–29.22-29&rft.date=2005-12&rft.aulast=Konoh&rft.aufirst=Arata&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 19" class="Z3988"> (Overview of the new series including a two page spread on the mobile suits: Impulse Gundam, Gaia Gundam, Abyss Gundam, Chaos Gundam, Saviour Gundam, Kaku Warrior and variants, Core Splendor, Minerva, and Girty Lue)
  8. Konoh, Arata (March 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Ready for Action". Newtype USA. 5 (3). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 26–29.26-29&rft.date=2006-03&rft.aulast=Konoh&rft.aufirst=Arata&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 19" class="Z3988"> (Another two page spread featuring 6 mobile suits: Zaku Warrior, Saviour Gundam, Abyss Gundam, Chaos Gundam, and Impulse Gundam)
  9. Konoh, Arata (April 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Start of War". Newtype USA. 5 (4). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 32–39.32-39&rft.date=2006-04&rft.aulast=Konoh&rft.aufirst=Arata&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 19" class="Z3988"> (Features "Sword" Impulse Gundam, and pull-outs for Zaku Warrior and variants, Gaia Gundam, Abyss Gundam, Chaos Gundam, Saviour Gundam, Dagger L, GuAIZ, GAZuOOt, and Exass)
  10. Konoh, Arata (August 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Confrontation". Newtype USA. 5 (8). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 28–35.28-35&rft.date=2006-08&rft.aulast=Konoh&rft.aufirst=Arata&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 19" class="Z3988"> (Features "Sword" Impulse Gundam in a conflict against an unnamed mobile armor, and the return of Freedom Gundam)
  11. Konoh, Arata (October 2006). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny". Newtype USA. 5 (10). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 30–39.30-39&rft.date=2006-10&rft.aulast=Konoh&rft.aufirst=Arata&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 19" class="Z3988"> (Features Destiny Gundam)
  12. Konoh, Arata (January 2007). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: Destiny Calls". Newtype USA. 6 (1). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 26–35.26-35&rft.date=2007-01&rft.aulast=Konoh&rft.aufirst=Arata&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 19" class="Z3988"> (Features Strike Freedom Gundam, Destiny Gundam, and Destroy Gundam and model kits for Destiny Gundam and Zaku Warrior)
  13. Martin, Theron (January 23, 2007). "Mobile Suit Gundam Seed X Astray Vol. 1". Anime News Network.
  14. Martin, Theron (September 30, 2008). "Gundam SEED Destiny TV Movie II". Anime News Network.
  15. Santos, Carlo (September 12, 2005). "Gundam Seed the Movie: The Empty Battlefield". Anime News Network.
  16. Smith, David F. (March 2006). "Gundam SEED Destiny: A Return to the Cosmic Era". Newtype USA. 5 (3). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 146.
  17. Staff editor (May 2005). "Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny: The War That Never Ends". Newtype USA. 4 (5). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 166. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help) (Attributes series popularity to the varied mecha designs)
  18. Staff editor (June 2005). "Gundam Trough the Years". Newtype USA. 4 (6). A.D. Vision, Kadokawa Shoten: 84–95.84-95&rft.date=2005-06&rft.au=Staff editor&rfr_id=info:sid/en.wikipedia.org:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 June 19" class="Z3988"> {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help) (Mentions an original Strike Gundam action feature being bundled with the March 2003 issue of Newtype Japan)
  19. Tucker, Derrick L. "Gundam Seed". T.H.E.M. Anime Reviews.
  20. Otona no Gundam by Nikkei Business Publications, analyzing the business model and methods used by different series.
  21. Great Mechanics 7
  22. 9
  23. 11 specials on Gundam SEED mecha
  24. 16 special on SEED-D, featuring Zaku Warrior, an elite Mook
  25. 17
  26. 18 specials on SEED-D
  27. 12 special on SEED MSV(mobile suit variations)
  28. 14 Cosmic Era MS Style.(Cosmic Era is the fictional timeline in SEED series)
  29. Analyzing all up to date Gundam designs and strategy including SEED ones
  30. section "Atmospheric reentry, from First to SEED, SF setting and strategy
Just relisting the sources, since people !vote delete seemed to have just read the article and did not go into the DrV. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 02:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

edit
  • Keep per my comments in the previous AfD along with the sources found since then. I have completely reorganized the articles to present it more in an out of universe point of view as well as started a reception section using some of the sources. While individual entries will need to be rewritten, those are a cleanup issues. —Farix (t | c) 02:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge to List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons. We have something in excess of 350 articles about this anime franchise, and something in excess of 50 lists; our coverage is bloated and it would be hard for an inexperienced end-user to find content in among so much indiscriminate material. We need to cut down, and smerging lists like this one and List of Mobile Suit Gundam Wing mobile weapons back to the main List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons would be a good start.—S Marshall T/C 02:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons focuses on the the original series. Creating a list that covers "everything" would be far too broad and will not adequately cover the topic for at least 7 different incarnations of the Gundam franchises. It would be like trying to combine all superheros into one list. Also having the lists divided by series makes the lists more manageable and allows readers to focus on just an individual series or timeline. In fact, the general number of articles and lists isn't a problem. On top of that, there are only 12 lists covering the mobile weapons for 14 different series. I also believe that the "350 articles" is heavily inflated because many of the articles appear to be counted 3 or 4 times as they are located in multiple categories as well as including media files into the count. While we should merge most of the remaining articles on individual mecha and character into lists, eliminating the lists won't reduce the perceived "over coverage". To the contrary, it only makes consolidating the rest of the articles that much more difficult. —Farix (t | c) 03:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried counting the actual number of articles in the Gundam category and all its subcategories, and got a count of 259 unique articles (not counting files). For comparison, Anime News Network lists about 115 anime and manga in the Gundam franchise, and there are also dozens of Gundam video games and other related products. While probably some of the Gundam articles on Wikipedia should be merged or deleted, I don't think the total number of articles we have is unreasonable given the size of the franchise. Calathan (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) As I said in the deletion review, List of Mobile Suit Gundam mobile weapons is only a list for the one show Mobile Suit Gundam, and there is not a main list for the franchise. Your suggestion would not be merging a sub-list back to a main list, but creating a new list from lists that currently have completely separate scope. I strongly oppose merging this list with that one. It is a poor organization of the topic to group objects from two shows that aren't plot related, were produced more than two decades apart, and which would have had significant differences in production and marketing. Either the mobile weapons from Gundam SEED are notable enough to recieve coverage in Wikipedia or they aren't, and if they are then there is no policy-based reason to not have them in their own article. You seem to want to artificially reduce the number of articles on the subject when there is no policy or guideline that suggests a limit to the number of articles. There simply is no reason why one franchise can't have a large number of articles as long as the subject of each of those articles in individually notable. As the Gundam franchise has been running for more than 30 years and has regularly been producing new TV shows, movies, and other notable subjects, there is no reason to expect it not to have a large number of subjects that could each support an individual article. Furthermore, the merge you suggest would create a list that is too long, and I personally think it would be more confusing than the current organization (again, because the different series aren't plot related and were produced separately many years apart). Calathan (talk) 03:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or perhaps merge with Mobile Suit Gundam SEED and Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny. I think the sources are probably good enough to support an stand-alone list, but even if they are not, I think that the mobile weapons are a significant enough part of the series that they should at least have coverage in the main articles. The mobile weapons are part of the main marketing for Gundam, and sales of models and other goods based on the mobile weapons are a large part of how the franchise makes its money. The main topics of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED and Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny are certainly notable, and I don't think we can have adequate coverage of those subjects without covering the mobile weapons somewhere (either in a stand-alone list or in the parent articles). Calathan (talk) 03:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per WP:SK#1, "The nominator ...fails to advance an argument for deletion...". The discussion above indicates that the issue is a structural or organisational one, requiring ordinary editing rather than deletion. The matter should therefore be discussed on the articles' talk page(s) rather than here. AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That speedy keep criterion certainly doesn't apply to an AFD that was relisted due to a deletion review. Calathan (talk) 17:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a relist, and it had nothing to do with a sockpuppet, please read Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_June_6.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete All of the sources of this article are in-universe only, for why this is a problem see my essay at wp:OOUOnly. Also the argument that this meets WP:SK#1 is spurious, this is being relisted as a procedural matter. If every time a nominator procedurally renominated an article per a deletion review it was kept as WP:SK#1 then there would be literally no purpose at all to having DRV. HominidMachinae (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would not say that THEM animne reviews, and Newtype USA are in universe sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reply to Folken on the DrV, The magazine you linked to is not a magazine, it is a series of books published by Futabasha, called the Common Knowledge of..., which also includes other topics like gemstones and the Edo period. This particular one is Common Knowledge of Gunpla it does give out a 1/288 model, yet it is a gift, not a product. The book talks about the history of Gunpla, which is actually a very prominent hobby in Japan, in which the hobby magazine, Hobby Japan, which was first published 10 years before First Gundam have significant coverage of it per issue. Bandai has its own catalogs and history books, and multiple other companies also does the same thing, it is very reasonable that all businesses want to take a bite out of something that can make money, that is why there are dozens of publishers publishing thousands of Gundam related books, including Gakken, a publisher that published mainly educational products, also published at least two books on the One Year War, which is not much more than plot summary other than some fictional strategy analysis. Giving out gifts along with books are also very common in Japan, Like this one it would be entirely funny if this particular issue made Gakken a complete COI that anything it publishes cannot give notability to the Newton telescope because it produces Newton telescopes(not that it needed any, but you get my point). Per WP:GNG: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.[4], and [4] Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations. First, I must seek your consensus that affiliation does not equal to publication of related material, because nothing can have sources since all sources are basically a direct publication of relate material. Also, COI cannot be a simple market driven relationship, meaning a scientific journal needs scientific breakthrough to continue publication, so it is pretty heavily related to the market and will have to publish related material for its business survival. Every other major publishers, if not all, in Japan had publications related to Gundam, it triggered an anime boom after all, so if we follow your method, Gundam cannot be notable due to all sources will be affiliated. Great Mechanics is not a self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiography or press release, it is also not work produced by the subject and the company is producing prominently other publications not related thus the connection is very weak. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 02:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So Futabasha has a history of diverse Gundam-related publications directly advertised on the copyright holders' website, including one in which they offer officially-sanctionned commercial products. Sorry but all these elements, the regularity with which they're associated with the name "Gundam" (and particularly the Gundam figure, which they absolutely couldn't give without approval), in my opinion, tend to show they are not independent but rather a part of the vast Gundam promotional campaign (as I said earlier, any copyright holder can pay a third party editor to publish about a specific topic, and any editor can pay a copyright holder to make money on a topic) and you've provided nothing that would clear Futabasha of any suspicion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am seeing more sources added to the list as time goes on, the article is stil lin very bad shape but it does okay WP:Notability and WP:V wise, I feel with these references and more it can be fixed up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep  This is supported in part by WP:SK#1, "The nominator ...fails to advance an argument for deletion..." and further by WP:Banning policy.  The first AfD nomination was by a sockpuppet, so it is not correct to call this a relist.  There were no delete !votes when the Speedy Keep was identified.  What we have now is two AfDs and zero nominations.  See also:User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2011/5#WP:BAN for the nominator's view about banning policy.  The issues here belong at the talk page of the article anyway.  The argument that this is plot-only falls just by reading the article.  I glanced at one of the references provided above (this one), which cannot be dismissed by the wp:vaguewave claims "absolutely no notability" and "all the sources are in-universe only".  Unscintillating (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you really want to go that way, I can close this AfD, change the DRV close to deletion endorsed by default instead, and redelete the article. Somehow I doubt that's the way you want to go.... T. Canens (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was surprised to see this here anyway, there didn't seem to be a consensus to overturn. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't. First four bolded words in the DRV close. T. Canens (talk) 07:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG, a topic is notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I acknowledge the efforts, since the last nomination, of several contributors to provide source and to try to include out of universe content, but unfortunately this deletion review established that all these source are either insignificant (for some) or not independent (for the majority, which are commercial publications under direct contract with the copyright holders for the Gundam series), thus the criteria for inclusion are still not met. Let's not forget the obvious lack of balance between in-universe and out-of-universe content.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I asked a number of people at the DrV, but could you address the problem you have with source 21? Hobit (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's what I've been discussing with Mythsearcher. Great Mechanics is a publication that is advertised on the official Gundam website, and thepublisher, Futabasha, has commercial links with the Gundam copyright holders since they've distributed some Gundam models in one of their magazine.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the response. To the first, I don't think if X advertises with company Y that means either X or Y's coverage of each is somehow tainted. And selling a model with their own publication? Eh. That doesn't seem like that a close relationship, more like the NYT and burger king. Hobit (talk) 03:08, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are two basic arguments for deletion that I see. #1 is GNG. Is there non-trivial coverage of this topic by independent reliable sources? I believe 1, 2, 16, 17 and especially 21 (a whole issue of a magazine?) are all above that bar. The GNG would seem to be trivially met, though I fully admit I don't know a huge amount about the topic. Reason #2 for deletion would be WP:PLOT (or a lack of "out of universe material". If you believe that we must have out-of-universe material to have an article I think the case being made is fairly strong. I don't think WP:PLOT can, or should be read that way. Certainly I disagree with that reading. We shouldn't have just plot summary, but when third-parties have covered material like this we _should_ cover the topic, as we should for any notable topic. Also, those !voting for a speedy keep need to realize no such argument will hold water here and either strike or update their !votes. Hobit (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reviews in ANN that barely mention anything about the topic don't qualify as "significant coverage", and articles published by a company that owns some of the Gundam rights (Kadokawa) are not independent.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The sources cited address in detail Mobile Suit Gundam SEED and Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny, but not the Mobile Suits themselves, which when mentioned are mostly passing mentions and/or in-universe. There are no reliable third-party sources independent of the subject to presume notability. I do not see evidence that that they meet the general notability guideline or that there are reliable sources for the individual weapons to presume that they should have a stand-alone list, as there are no sources that provide reception, significance or real-world perspective. Even if one tries to ignore the independent of the subject problem with the sources mentioned by Folken de Fanel, for notability purposes all the Newtype USA sources count as only one source because they are from the same publisher. The books cited in Amazon Japan are not even direct mentions and in no way show notability for the fictional weapons, as they are mostly tertiary sources that compile information but do not give objective evidence of notability or they are for the whole franchise. The only ones that I see as solid evidence for notability purposes are Anime News Network and T.H.E.M. Anime Reviews, and both of them do not treat the fictional weapons as a subject, but as part of the plot of the series. In fact, checking the reception section and the sources, they merely praises the overall mechanical design in the series, nothing to presume that the Mobile Suits are notable on their own or that it justifies to have a stand-alone list about them.
    Furthermore, the sources only serve to establish a presumption that a subject is suitable for inclusion. As mentioned before, the reception section is not even about the mobile suits and should be covered in the series articles. The rest of the content of the article is a plot-only description of a fictional work taken with original research by synthesis at best, so the article also falls into what Wikipedia is not and does not meet the criteria of appropriate topics for lists. Knowing the mobile weapons in detail (even the notable ones plot-wise) is not necessary to understand the plot of the series. Whatever is needed to understand about them is already covered in the article mobile weapons. Per the criteria of avoiding unnecessary splits, I do not think that this is a valid article split since it doesn't meet neither the general notability criterion nor any specific notability criteria and notability is not inherited. The article is an unjustified content fork more related to a complete exposition of all possible details, so I don't see a valid reason to keep the article. Jfgslo (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm kind of reiterating what I've already said above, but I want to make it clear that I think even if this isn't kept as a standalone article, that at the least some content from this article should be merged to the parent articles Mobile Suit Gundam SEED and Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny. The mobile suits are such an important part of the franchise, both in terms of the in-world plot and the real-world appeal, marketing, and profitability of the series, that I don't think the topic of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED could be adequately covered without at least some coverage of the mobile suits. I think many of the delete votes are incorrectly discounting that some of the content from this article could be used in other articles even if this is not kept as a stand alone list. I also want to point out that another AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-01 Strike Dagger) recently concluded with other articles being redirected to this list, and a couple articles being tagged for a merge to this list. The articles being merged in particular contain a lot of real world information, some of which is sourced. I'm not sure what would happen to that information if this article is deleted before the merger occurs, but I think it would be incorrect to delete that content based on this AFD (both since the other AFD already indicated that content should be merged, and because the people responding to this AFD aren't necessarily aware that those articles exist and are slated to be merged). I also want to comment that I still disagree with Folken de Fanel that merely being published by a company that also published spin-offs from the franchise would necessarily make a magazine's coverage of the franchise non-independant (since he has been suggesting that it was "established" at the deletion review that the sources were non-independant, when in fact that seemed to be one of the main issues of disagreement at the deletion review that resulted in there being no consensus). I also strongly disagree with the statement that giving away some models for a series makes someone no longer independent from that series, as that is no different than advertising. The suggestion that even the most minor of buisiness relationship would make someone non-independant would imply that every major newspaper and magazine is no longer independent from anyone that has ever run an advertisement in that publication, which I certainly don't think is the case. Calathan (talk) 20:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry but you can't just "disagree" that Kadokawa and their Newtype magazine are not independent about Gundam. Kadokawa is one of the copyright holders for the Gundam franchise and they publish an official manga. WP:GNG states that "independent" means that it "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator", Kadokawa are affiliated with the subject, so they're not independent, period. Disagree if you want, but if you're not willing to explain precisely why Kadokawa would be independent from the Gundam franchise, then your claims mean absolutely nothing. WP:GNG is clear on that point, and trying to depreciate the quality of Kadokawa's Gundam manga by labelling it "spin-off" is not a good-faith argument. We don't care whether Mobile Suit Gundam: The Origin is good enough for you. And concerning Futabasha, they published various official Gundam magazines, and yes, that they give away official Gundam models is a proof they're not independent. I don't remember reading in WP:GNG that the level of independence required would vary depending on how it suits the supporters of an article.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Folken de Fanel, I'm honestly confused and hurt by your comments. Isn't the anime the main part of the Gundam franchise, and all the other parts spin-offs? I thought that was obvious and non-controversial. It has nothing to do with quality or anything like that, just that the Gundam is at its core an anime franchise. I don't understand how you can accuse me of bad faith for that. I think you need to remember to remain civil about this, and that just because we disagree doesn't mean that one of us is acting in bad faith.
About things being independent from one another, I want to clarify that I disagree with you strongly as a general point about how Wikipedia does work and should work, and also disagree with you to a lesser degree about Newtype USA, but that I did not mean to be commenting about Futabasha, since I know nothing about it. To try to better explain why I disagree with your comments as they generally apply to Wikipedia, let me give an example . . . I personally would say that CNN is an independent source for news on DC Comics, even though they are both owned by the same parent company, since CNN editors are paid to be impartial and they are relatively separate from DC Comics. I could certainly understand, however, if some Wikipedia editors would disagree, since they are still owned by the same parent company. I would also say that CNN is an independent source for news on McDonald's, even though McDonald's has given away toys based on DC Comics characters, as there is such a minor connection between CNN and McDonald's that I don't think they could be considered non-independent. I think that most, but not necessarily all, Wikipedia editors would agree that CNN is an independent source for news on McDonald's. Whether or not it was your intention, your comments suggest to me that you would not only not find CNN to be a independent source for news on DC Comics, but also not an independent source for news on McDonald's, or for news on any company that has every advertised on CNN.com, or for news on anyone who has ever acted in a Batman film, etc., since all those things have some sort of business relationship with CNN or their parent company, Time Warner. Since I think CNN should be considered an independent news source on some of those things, and would be considered an independent source for some of those things by most Wikipedia editors, I disagree strongly with what I see as the implications of your statements for what should and should not be considered independent. I feel very strongly that the statements in the GNG were not meant to eliminate all sources that have any sort of business relationship, however minor, from being independent, as that would basically eliminate every major news source or publication from being an independent source for almost anything. I also disagree that what is or is not idependent is cut and dry or always obvious, and think that there will be many borderline cases that need to be discussed individually. I certainly think it is reasonable for different editors to disagree over the borderline cases, or even to disagree which cases are borderline.
To get back to the sources for this particular AFD, as I have said previously, I think Newtype USA can be considered independent since the people working directly on it are employees of ADV, not Kadowaka, that they are mainly covering a part of the franchise that was not made by Kadokawa, that ADV has claimed the people working on it would be independent from any company including ADV itself, and that Newtype in general publishes coverage on anime from many companies, suggesting that it isn't just a publicity source for one company. I do think that the case is borderline, and think you have presented some solid arguements for it not being independent, but still disagree on that point. Again, that doesn't mean that one of us is distorting the facts or acting in bad faith, but merely that we disagree on this particular point. Calathan (talk) 06:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calathan, I think the problem here is that you obviously don't agree with a specific point of WP:GNG, and we may argue for weeks without it leading anywhere. "Votes" in AfDs have to be based on existing policies, not on what we wish were the policies. An AfD is not the place where we come up with new policies to allow articles we wish to keep, but where we check if an article complies with existing policies. WP:GNG is pretty clear in that it excludes "works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator", and Kadokawa/Nextype is really obviously in that situation. It's not up to you to determine the levels of affiliation that will be accepted according to how it suits the sources you want to include. And I think you'll agree with me that nothing good will ever come out of our discussion, since you're advocating for an original and unsupported interpretation of a policy while I'm just going by what is written there. We're just not talking about the same thing, and Wikipedia talk:Notability seems more appropriate for what you have to say.
I'll just correct a factual mistake about Newtype USA. It's something I already told you in WP:Deletion_review/Log/2011_June_6 and which you avoided to comment: "As for Newtype USA, it is (well, was) mostly a translation of the original japanese articles, and Kadokawa remains one of the copyright holders even for the US publication. That ADV printed the translations doesn't change anything, the articles listed here are still originally from Kadokawa."Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Folken, I have to tell you that the official gundam website advertise for magazines that are not even that related to their products, they simply put up news for Model Graphix, Dengeki Hobby and Hobby Japan. Having one or two collaboration projects does not necessarily mean they are affiliated. Just like Calathan said, an advertisement on a magazine is hardly an affiliation. Futabasha does not publish any official Gundam magazines, if you think listing it on the official website means it is an official magazine, the above 3 magazines and Great Mechanics all have much more other topics than Gundam. Also, having it on the Gundam website is very simple, if you are selling a product, and someone writes about it, you would like to show it on your own company site to let people know how popular/notable your product is. Now, if you want to claim affiliation, I can agree with you on Kodakawa since they do publish an official monthly manga magazine for Gundam, and having a good marketing strategy that promote Gundam can help them earn more money since they continuously publishes such magazines. But for Futabasha, their publications are much more one off, Gundam having a great popularity does not mean they get a chunk out of it, instead, they are just publishing random things that can get people interest in, and Gundam happens to be one of them. It is like a sports magazine interviewing the champion because people want to read about that, not because they try to be affiliated with the champion and hire the champion to sell their magazine or was paid by the champion to advertise him. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 18:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Having one or two collaboration projects does not necessarily mean they are affiliated." -> Yes it does. It's not up to just one or two editors to define the accepted levels of affiliation according to how it will suit their attempt to keep an article. You're free to take that issue up with Wikipedia talk:Notability, but I won't discuss it any longer, WP:GNG excludes "works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator", I'm going to stick to that.
"Futabasha does not publish any official Gundam magazines": Yes they do. First one is here [143] (the one in which they give a figure model), then I've just discovered this, officially copyrighted to Sunrise. So yes, now we have definite and undisputable proof that Futabasha is part of the Gundam promotional campain.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- in my opinion consensus to delete was reached at the previous AfD, despite the sockiness of the nominator. Since there was no consensus to overturn it at the DrV, I think the original close should stand. Reyk YO! 08:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please notice the reason of the closing admin of the first nomination claimed that there are no address of notability in verifiable sources as the main deletion consensus, yet there are only 4 sources in that nomination, and the DrV increased the number of sources to 30, in which at least 1 is never refuted by anyone with a delete !vote, the Endorse !votes in the DrV have a few that come and go, without even stating whose view they supported and those are pretty much before anyone tried to refute the later added sources. One of them did not only make personal attacks, but also completely ignores the direct claim of sources being not plot, which I must address the closing admin that this is a very obvious tendency of failure to engage in discussion and continued to give WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasonings just to make a WP:POINT. Folken tried to refute the later sources, which I honoured, since he is pretty much the one and only who do so. Nevermind s/he ignored the Nikkei source, since I can also agree if only 1 single independent source is not an indication of notability, if it is the only independent source. S/he tried to do it by relating the different companies by single publications, in which Calathan gave a good reply up there. Other delete !voters still failed to grasp that the sources listed here, at least the last 11, is NOT plot summary. Jfgslo tried to merge different sources into one, stating they are by the same publisher, which is rather strange, different issue of the same magazine can have different topics, which led to different sources, merging them and saying they are all but only one is not reflecting any known policy. Stating the amazon links are not direct mention is only like stating I cannot cite the magazine Science in any science article, since the cover of it is not direct mention. Things have changed significantly during the DrV, stating the original close should stand is by no means a good argument. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 08:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The series is about the mobile suits. This is like a character or enemies list for a notable series. Dream Focus 16:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no out-of-universe, independent sources at all. So this clearly fails WP:GNG. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite, you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GAT-01 Strike Dagger with an indication to merge two articles into the one being discussed here, as those articles had sources. Do you also think those sources are unacceptable (i.e. did you perhaps close that AFD based on the consensus there, but not personally agree with that consensus)? If you did find those articles sufficiently sourced to merge to this one, why can't this article exist with large sections merged from those articles and only a brief list of the other mobile suits? If those articles aren't merged here, then should they be merged to the main Gundam SEED and Gundam SEED Destiny articles? Also, I still haven't seen any good reason from anyone why parts of this list couldn't be merged (in a condensed form) to each of the articles on the anime and manga where the mobile suits appear. Those articles certainly have independent, out of world sources, and even if you feel the sources for this article aren't independent, I don't see why they couldn't be used to support small sections in other articles that already have enough sources to pass the GNG. Calathan (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite, can you at least state whose view you agreed to that there are no out of universe and independent sources? Or whose view you disagreed that the above listed sources are not independent? I understand that different people have different POV, but AfDs are not votes, and if you really want to build consensus, you at least need to give your own view, instead of a simple denial, which make it impossible to discuss. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 11:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all articles and lists need to meet the general notability guideline. WP:FICT says that "until there is a successful proposal to treat fiction in a specialized way, consult other policies and guidelines for guidance on a wide range of topics, including fiction." Don't just make up guidelines without showing real support. This article is mainly in-universe and primary coverage that fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:GNG's request for third-party information about significance. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails general notability guideline --rogerd (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can I comment on all these bad practise of not reading the discussion above? Shooterwalker, how the article is currently like have no bearing in if it is notable or not, it is only related to how much independent source people can find. You can have a complete trash article with no citation yet it can have multiple 3rd party reliable, verifiable sources to prove its notability. Rogerd, I have trouble seeing your argument with a list of sources up there, short and single visit vote seem so bad faith. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 04:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juan-Pablo Amado

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

fails WP:NTENNIS Mayumashu (talk) 04:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Mephtalk 16:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He has won ATP Futures titles, but this is the level below what is required. Specifically WP:NTENNIS #4 requires an ATP Challenger title. He has competed in the ATP Challenger series but only reached the quarter-finals (latest stats from here). Obviously the article can be undeleted if he ever wins a Challenger title. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. as a BLP there needs to be coverage of more then one aspect of this individual's life and there consensus is clearly that we are looking at BLP1E Spartaz Humbug! 20:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aamir al-Shihri

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

The subject is only notable for a single event. Delete per WP:PSEUDO. 4meter4 (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or redirect to the list article. (Actually, he is not mentioned there either).--Dmol (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Making a nation's most wanted list, and later being involved in a shootout equals two events in my opinion. Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have to agree with Ryan. That's more than one event and the coverage is significant enough to meet WP:GNG albeit notoriously.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 18:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge If you look at the main article for Saudi list of most wanted terrorists, you'll notice that almost every entry (at least under December 6, 2003) shares the exact same sources. These men were wanted, but more for being radicals than personal acts of terror - there's not much to satisfy WP:BLP1E in this case, let alone GNG. EDIT: One could also conceivably merge all of these details into the Saudi most-wanted list, given that they're shared across 5-6 stubs. m.o.p 16:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable. --rogerd (talk) 22:35, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect or failing that, weak delete. No evidence of meeting WP:GNG, source 1 is more coverage of the list than the individual, what we learn about the individual is minor and source 3 doesn't mention the article subject at all, leaving source 2 as the closest thing to a claim of significant coverage, and that claim borderline. Since what information we do provide seems well-enough sourced there's little reason to remove it entirely, and a merge provides the reader as much information about the subject as this limited "biography" would. --joe deckertalk to me 15:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mondlango

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

Mondlango is an IAL which has little presence on or off the internet. Its biggest appearance offline is a paragraph in this book Its name appears in a few lists of Esperantidos (although there's no telling whether or not the entry in the list refers to this Mondlango, since it is a pretty obvious name for an IAL). As for the internet, while "Mondlango" nets an impressive 97,000 ghits, a look at them reveals that it's all spam and Wikipedia mirrors. It seems that the creator of Mondlango has spammed an essay called "Why Mondlango?" on numerous forums (this essay is cited here on Wikipedia as "an opinion on Mondlango"). The other citations are: mondlango.com, fan sites (1, 2), a mailing list, and wenxue.com, which has a dictionary and a forum with thousands of posts from the same person. In fact, almost everything about it on the internet seems to come from the same small group of people. One paragraph, an entry on some lists, and spam does not add up to notability.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Hermione is a dude (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, the rules I believe this violates are WP:NOTE as I discussed above and WP:SPAM, as it is essentially the same article that original writer, apparently a friend of the creator on Mondlango, made in 2009. Indeed, it actually includes real spam in its citations. Hermione is a dude (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Regarding the "impressive 97,000 ghits", in my experience the number of hits reported by Google is usually a meaningless random number. When I page through the Google hits for "Mondlango" they actually stop at 478, rather than the 214,000 that Google initially reported. This is typical behaviour. While I'm here, I may as well also mention that I don't see any evidence in the Google hits of any real-world awareness of, interest in or take-up of this language. 81.159.111.181 (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No RSes. Search shows this thing being mentioned only by the people/person inventing the idea. Also, this article is pretty clearly promotional (as instead of discussing Monglango "from afar", it lays out a page giving an overview of the language itself (like almost teaching to speak it). This is just someone who wants to use Wiki as a place to host a page. We have way too much of that going on...TCO (talk) 16:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to be notable. Captain panda 16:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A Google books search does through up some mentions, but no specific discussion as would assist the article passing the WP:GNG. It could yet take off to some meaningful extent, but the article is premature. If this were a film or book, it would be in the "rumour" stage. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete. From article itself and the Google searches mentioned above the notability of the subject seems highly questionable. The article might be kept, if it's sourcing were improved and the sources clearly indicated the notability.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erdal Gezik

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

The subject appears to fail the criteria of WP:BIO and and WP:AUTHOR. A Google search provided me with no sources other than pages that identified certain books as books that he authored; however, I was able to find nothing that confirmed any notability for the subject Inks.LWC (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Inks.LWC (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Erdal Gezik is a scholar on what are considered to be controversial subjects in the Republic of Turkey. There is no difficulty in finding references in English and Turkish languages. Due to the number of references I suspect that notability as an academic/scholar is likely to be met. This needs to be further investigated before deletion. See, for example, the hits on Google Scholar.  Nipsonanomhmata  (Talk) 09:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in the hope that some one can add something biographical to this list of publications, one day. Since he is not a person writing in English, I fear that may take a long time, but we should not dispair. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Ter Horst

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

Non-notable glamour model, failing WP:ENT, the GNG, and all potentially relevant SNGs. Non-Playmate caught up in the recent mass Playmate AFDs, where the article was kept for procedural reasonas despite have multiple substantive delete !votes and no substantive !keep votes. No significant coverage; only three trivial GNews hits, all GBooks hits are compilations of Wikipedia articles. Playboy cover count, cited in earlier AFD, may appear impressive, but all are in licensed-out non-US editions, far less noteworthy, and includes group shots, tiny inset photos, etc; the total for Drew Barrymore is 16, for Jenny McCarthy 36, for Pamela Anderson 169 (not a typo), . . . and for Marge Simpson, 11. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete without prejudice. Unsourced BLP. Any editor is free to recreate this article with sources so consider this a no consensus close. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lorrie Doriza

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

no notability here. closest this gets is a guest vocals on a single track on an album of questionable notability. lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. nothing satisfying wp:music. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Probaly can be added onto in the near future with info from websites like IMDB. Person seems famous, singers and actresses usually are. Has Citations, always a plus. Stickulus (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi -- for us to give weight to your !vote, we need something stronger than a suggestion that the article can be improved in the future. Can you perhaps supply references that support your suggestion that Doriza is notable, according to wp's notability criteria? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least for now. There seems to be enough recent coverage out there to make the name a plausible search term [144] [145]; but I'm not familiar enough with the subject to say whether she's independently notable or that the content should be preserved by merging into an article about Vespertina, or Stoupe, or whatever. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. It's not clear to me that sugarnthunder is an RS. But I won't object to the article being deleted here and merged into any other article that is in fact notable, as reflected by RS support.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find sufficient RS support now reflecting notability, though the Queens Courier article is an RS and is a start ... but not sufficient, IMHO. If she generates it in the future, I would of course support a new article.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK #1. Yes AFDs are sometimes closed as "merge" but that's usually the result of the !voters offering a "merge" alternative to a nominator's suggestion to "delete". In most cases (but there are a few exceptions) an article should not be bought to AFD unless the nominator wants an admin to push the delete button. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mohawk Brush Company

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

I created this page last year as a redirect to Fuller Brush Company, but it was turned into an uninformative stub. I don't believe this topic can stand as its own article, and that it should be merged and turned back into a redirect. Gyrobo (talk) 03:28, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Mephtalk 16:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not trying to advance an argument for deleting the article, I'm trying to advance an argument for merging it. I've seen articles merged as a result of AfD before, so I thought this was the proper venue for that. If it's not, then I withdraw this nomination, and will seek a different process. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is no opposition then you can just go ahead and merge per WP:BOLD. Otherwise, the process is described at WP:MERGE. Merger is not the primary purpose of AFD; it's just a common alternative to deletion which tends to arise in the course of discussion. Warden (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. joe deckertalk to me 17:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cayman Islands national football team results

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

Delete this football results list per WP:NOT#STATS--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC) — ZjarriRrethues — talk 12:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. — Mephtalk 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there enough verifiable content to justify a seperate article? GiantSnowman 15:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say so - FIFA.com has results going back to 1991. —BETTIA— talk 15:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Perkins

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

Author of article does not provide notability of author. However, an article for her book, Anna and the French Kiss, has been made with some resources mentioned, such as a being mentioned by NPR. However, I do no think it is enough to establish notability. Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 02:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See likely socking by new accounts and IPs, enclosed
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comment - Possible sockpuppetry going on in here. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 03:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not sock puppetry. I know you all don't think very highly of what we refer to as Nerdfigtheria, but Stephanie has quite a following. When I mentioned to some of them that you were considering deleting her, they banded together.

If you look at the IP addresses it proves that we're all different people. We're all just fans that care and think that Stephanie deserves to have a page of her own. Luckiestxclover (talk) 03:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOOK at the IP addresses SANCHEZ. Don't be blinded by your bias kid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.139.10 (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I've added the {{Not a ballot}} template to the top of the article. A reminder to all: the closing administrator will base his/her decision on the reasoning presented in the !votes than on the sheer number of keep/delete votes made. Also, !votes made by unregistered users (IP addresses) are likely to be thrown out because of the potential for abuse. —C.Fred (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It is an amazing thing how a series of IP addresses all weigh in using the same exact utterly non-standard phrase. This article can certainly use the input of content and sourcing by all six of these like-minded editors at this point, because right now it's utterly non-encyclopedia-worthy. This team of six dedicated editors should have no trouble getting this into shape before the gong rings, eh?Carrite (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC) last edit: Carrite (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional likely socking at AFD, enclosed.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • DO NOT DELETE Let's define "notable" here.

By the standards of the notability guideline for creative professionals, Stephanie Perkins is "widely cited by peers and successors." Her work is talked up by John Green in this video, as well as several New York Times bestselling authors (as seen here.) It is argued that reviews and mentions "do not count towards the article for the author," and yet this guideline claims it certainly does. This argument is invalid.

Considering her three book deal, she also falls into the "collective body of work" category, as referred by this same policy. This author should not be chastised simply because her bibliography is continuing to grow. The Wikipedia article should remain in order to document her expanding body of work.

To those that discredit Nerdfighteria, even the concept of Nerdfighters is of merit to be mentioned throughout the Vlogbrothers Wikipedia page.

Quite simply, I view a notable author as someone whose work has touched and is renowned by fans and peers alike. Stephanie Perkins is clearly already making a buzz in the YA literature community, so whether she is of enough merit to fill a Wikipedia article should not be of concern. Even a simple Google search offers several pages of relevant results. As her body of work and career expands, there will certainly be no shortage of research or content on this author.

Keep the article! Whitleebee (talk) 05:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
— Whitleebee (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete Stephanie Perkins may have great merit as a writer and should grow in her reach and in her following. But the content is almost entirely pasted in from her website, and as such is promotional. This does her an injustice. Egonb (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few of us are in the process of revamping her entry to make it more complete, so I ask that you re-review it in a couple of days before you vote delete on those premises.
To address the concern that my account has mostly been used for this, that's correct. I made this wikipedia account years ago (I'm honestly unsure of how many.. I believe 3) for a school project. Since then, anytime I wanted to look something up, there's been an article on it. Tonight I went to look up one of my favorite authors, Stephanie Perkins, and was unable to find an article. I was excited to create something that I felt would benefit the community. When it was nearly immediately deleted, yes, I started advocating on her behalf. I understand that the article was not handled entirely professionally in the beginning. There was just a lot of excitement at seeing the page go live. However, it is now being fully developed and more content will be added as it is found. Please realize that there are so many of us out there that have been touched by Stephanie's books. There were so many people who came to post dissenting opinions because no one could believe that her article would be deleted when so many other articles exist on wikipedia, seemingly of less merit.
I do apologize again for the less than responsible behavior initially. As I said, we were all just a bit giddy. (Frankly, getting the wiki article made caused Stephanie to tweet me back.. Not knowing her personally, having someone I admire carry a conversation with me was pretty exciting). People become 'notable' for having lots of babies or being rich.. In my opinion those are far less deserving of a wikipedia entry than someone who creates literature that touches the lives of all ages.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I really hope that you will see the benefits of allowing this page to remain on wikipedia. Sammich117 (talk) 07:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Egonb, by "pasted in from her website", do you mean we have a copyright violation situation, where a speedy delete of the article may be in order? —C.Fred (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although after comparing the article text to her website, I do not see evidence of copyvio. There are blurbs copied, but they're set off as direct quotations and referenced. —C.Fred (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence is provided that Perkins meets the WP:AUTHOR criteria for specific notability of creative persons. Additionally, after looking at the sources, she fails the general notability guidelines for lack of coverage in sources that are independent and reliable. The bulk of the references in the article are to blogs and other sites without a demonstrated editorial policy, or to sites controlled by Perkins or those with a conflict of interest toward her. The one independent, reliable source I saw was to an interview my the Mountain Xpress, a local newspaper. Until she gets more coverage in the reliable media or wins an award or the like to meet WP:AUTHOR, she does not warrant an article. —C.Fred (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
C.Fred Re possible copyright violation: I was very confident about my observations at the time of of posting, and can see that the authors of the page took heed of the messages and made many changes in order to save the page. They seem to be newcomers, clearly devoted to Stephanie's writing and anxious to share their enthusiasm. Twitter traffic about the page reflects this. Unfortunately the devotion may be a barrier to writing from an independent and neutral POV. It now appears as patchwriting, disguised plagiarism, and largely drawn from her personal website bio and from the interviews on blogs. If the page is not to be deleted on other grounds, the authors will need to find their own voices. As also a newcomer I can admire their pluck and energy, and wish them well in their efforts. Maybe next time around. Egonb (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mukhtiar Malik

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

Tagged for notability since 2009. Prodded, but prod removed. I cannot find sufficient RS support for the notability of this person, per wp standards. Epeefleche (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. — Mephtalk 16:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Article may need a bit of cleanup, but the sources indicate notability within the field. m.o.p 16:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific Bearing Corp

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

This was deleted in AFD 1 which had a relatively low turnout for a lack of sourcing but some sources have now been provided. Personally I don't think they cut the mustard but justice requires wider evaluation. Hence I have undeleted and relisted this for further discussion. The sources provided are:-

  • Weak delete - I'd say that sources 1 and 3 definitely don't prove notability. Source 2 is borderline, if there were other borderline sources with it, then I could see a case for notability, but with this one alone, I don't think it cuts it. Wizard191 (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a few more sources. Per Spartaz, this article is open for a 7 day review and I intend to add more content (as time/work permits). I do intend to add more Notable content within the week. Please reserve any "Delete" recommendations until the conclusion of the review period. - Schbrownie (talk) 14:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More sources/content has been added to this article. Realizing that this is still a "work in progress", there should at least be enough information to obtain a "no-delete". Schbrownie (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Mephtalk 16:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:00, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Marcus

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

After a cursory look, fails WP:BLP1E - "famous" for only one event Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Mephtalk 16:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Mephtalk 16:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - does not fail WP:BLP1E in my opinion per appeals which obviously recieved attention. The case has obviously also been taken into consideration by some highly important judges.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article obviously focuses on a legal case and is not a true biography of Glenn Marcus. I'm not convinced that all cases that appear before the US Supreme Court are notable, but I am open to hear what others say. Location (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge. I left a redirect behind to 2010 Chile earthquake#2011. m.o.p 14:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Arauco earthquake

edit
2011 Arauco earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable earthquake, no damage. Would perhaps be good to merge with 2010 Chile earthquake. Diego Grez (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. — Mephtalk 17:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. — Mephtalk 17:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Mephtalk 17:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 04:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Coram

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

Lacking notability per WP:MUSICBIO. (PROD tag was removed on the grounds that an upcoming release would confer notability.) William Avery (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Mephtalk 17:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An album is scheduled for release in the next two weeks which is confidently expected to comply with notability requirements, specifically of broadcast and review. The other two performers on the album are both celebrities in their field with a raft of broadcasting credits (Richard Briers and David Owen Norris). Another project which comes along almost straight after it makes a Wiki page useful. However, although responsible, creating this page wasn't my idea and I'm not really sure I want to fight this battle, so why not delete it and perhaps a new one could be started in a little while if appropriate. Coramdc (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stereo Hearts

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

Yet to be released single. No associated album article. No sources. Disputed prod No indication of meeting WP:NSONG. noq (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Mephtalk 18:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why this article should not be deleted is because it is going to be a released song. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.162.68 (talk) 18:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just because it will be released does not make it WP:notable. Please read WP:NSONG and explain how this song meets those guidelines. noq (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I got the source from the Internet, and the article will eventally work this time because I wrote that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.162.68 (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be merged into the band who made this song and that way this article should be re-created rather than made again. --86.162.162.68 (talk) 20:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP There's no point to deleting an article that's going to be recreated shortly. The song has made the Billboard Hot 100 and has been covered by Billboard multiple times [146], not to mention other heavily-followed sites [147], [148]. It is a collaboration between two acts who are multiple best-selling artists and is sure to get more coverage as time goes in. It's notable and as such there's no reason to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CWSensation (talk • contribs) 23:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC) KEEP I totally agree with CWSensation. It seems ridiculous to delete it when it will just be recreated. ≈Alessandro ♫ T • C 11:00, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilkeson Cup

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

Not-noteworthy. A trophy for a certain class of homemade vessels, awarded on a local festival that does not have its own entry. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I spent fifteen minutes reading through any relevant source I could find through searches - there's nothing that isn't just a quick mention of the LA Comedy Festival aside from their home page, which can't be used as a source. m.o.p 14:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Comedy Festival

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

article without real usefull information. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There were plenty of sources available, I just had to look around for suitable ones. I've fixed up the article to a serviceable shape - mind you, there aren't very many sources which talk about the park itself, but I think this is one case where notability has to be inherited (after all, it would be boring if newspapers put out coverage about a 5-kilometer strip of asphalt and not the Porsche 911s going 225km/h on it). m.o.p 14:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calabogie Motorsports Park

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

Article without really usefull information Night of the Big Wind (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Racetracks are generally notable, but this is a new track where few events have taken place to make it notable per se. The facility has potential to become notable (this ain't no quarter-mile oval), so I'll support keeping it. The only real problem is that the article is a weak effort so far and needs help. PKT(alk) 19:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Nightrunner Series. The article is currently an announcement for a product yet-to-be-released - see WP:CRYSTAL, particularly point 5, for why that's not fit for a Wikipedia article. Also, the only sources are the author's blog and website - also shaky. Let's leave it as a redirect until the book is actually out. m.o.p 13:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casket of Souls

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

Article about a non-published book. Looks like an advertisement. Not notable. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 20:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --per above. Additionally, the majority of the text of the article seems to be a direct quote of the book's summary on Amazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bstbll (talk • contribs) 20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It's the latest book in a notable series by a notable author and published by a notable publisher. Trim out the promotional bit, yes, but keep the rest of the article (which won't actually be able to have any more content for another several months). DS (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect at least for now to The Nightrunner Series. The title is probably useful as a search term, but the time for deciding whether the book should have its own article will be once it is published. PWilkinson (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. — Cirt (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casino New Brunswick

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

Article is on a Casino in Canada, which I fixed up as a stub, but notability is in question. –BuickCenturyDriver 20:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, like it or not, the casino was built to be a tourist attraction and it's therefore notable. The article is currently in awful shape, but regardless I think the subject matter should stay. PKT(alk) 21:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — Cirt (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Water Fuel Museum

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

A 2400 square foot museum that was only open from 2005-06, whose website is now bereft of life, and which has a grand total of either four or five mentions in reliable sources, all local newspapers ([155]), simply does not meet notability requirements. In particular, the fact that it received a few mentions in local newspapers does not confer notability. If it were a local restaurant with a few mentions and even a story or two devoted to it, would it have a Wikipedia article? No. And this shouldn't either. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I congratulate the nominator on their persistence, having waiting all this time since their first nomination in 2008. As we're still waiting for their explanation of that nomination, can they please point to the policy that explains why local sources don't count for notability. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because then every two-bit local diner that was open for a year would have a Wikipedia article. TallNapoleon (talk) 22:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This veiled attempt to hide important historical information from public view isn't about "notability." It is about suppressing information relating to a suppressed non-conventional alternative energy technology: namely, the possibilities of turning water into fuel. Shame on those responsible for such censorship! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.190.46.10 (talk) 08:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment. The first AFD was a "clean keep" so more discussion is needed to determine if consensus really has changed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For example "Keep meets WP:N. I'm unaware of anything in WP:N that limits us from using local sources. Hobit (talk) 01:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)" The current version of CORPDEPTH excludes such sources. I think someone said somewhere that such exclusions were put in to prevent your average local eatery from having a Wikipedia article based on local newspaper coverage. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some users from the previous AfD have since been banned for abusing multiple accounts, e.g. User:Ecoleetage. FuFoFuEd (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not "some users", only one - so the previous AFD result is valid. I can't find significant coverage as suggested there - maybe some news sources have been removed from Google news, of maybe there was not as much as was implied. The "CORPDEPTH" rationale contradicts the general notability guideline, and both are equal, as guidelines, so both views are acceptable (as well as anything in between) - however it seems that there is only one item of significant coverage cited in the article [156], it is from a local source, and as the museum closed soon after opening it is unlikely to have been the subject of coverage over a long period of time - one piece of coverage from a local newspaper isn't sufficient for an article, so unless more can be found the article should be deleted (or merged and redirected, if a suitable target can be found). Peter E. James (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • List of water fuel inventions was created by splitting a section from Water Fuel Museum, so if the article is deleted the history from before the split would still be needed. Peter E. James (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 9 gnews hits but most of these are small mentions. fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2011_June_19&oldid=1142637796"