Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 October 11

< 10 October	12 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn but this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep" close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International of Anarchist Federations

International of Anarchist Federations (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 subjet of this article has no known notable sources. The page seems to be perpetuated in a POV manner soley to promote the subject of the article. 0nonanon0 (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, all sources included on the page are self-published propagandist type materials meant to promote the organization. Also, consider that if the only sources that could be found are in spanish, perhaps this article would be better suited for the spanish wiki. I would be happy to see a ref in English from ANY major news source, though I do not believe it has ever been noted in major news sources. --0nonanon0 (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)~~Also, the name of the article doesn't make sense in English.~~ --0nonanon0 (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The subject is notable enough to be covered in some reputable news sources and merits it's own article. The current article still suffers from a slight lack of coverage, heavy reliance on self-published propiganda and the inherrant POV associated with political pamphlets. Could use work, but shouldn't disapear. Thanks all. 0nonanon0 (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keeparticle has existed for 5 years, with no third party references existing today. unless someone can add a solid reference immediately, this must go. i have sympathy for this presumably extant organization, but if you cant ever get mentioned by anyone else, youre a treehouse club, "anarchists only, no smelly authoritarians welcome". OK, looks like some more info was found that shows notability. i honely couldnt find any myself, but now we have the correct name below. I still have problems with the article, but those are for the talk page, not here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion. Skomorokh, barbarian 06:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perhaps not a lot comes up from Google because in English it tends to be called the "International Federation of Anarchists". This association has been around now for nearly 140 years. Just because in the past couple of years they've been a bit quiet, doesn't mean that the article should be scrapped. Some of the organisations that are a member of the IAF, such as the Spanish FAI, are still very vocal and important today. Historically, the IAF/IFA are important, and a current lapse of activity should not mean removal from Wikipedia. In any case, I shall find a reference in English to help this article along. --Tris2000 (talk) 11:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have now added a couple of links, including one from the Scotsman/Edinburgh Evening News, so hopefully this will satisfy the nominator. Tris2000 (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating. The Edinburough news source looks good. It appears that it's a reputable citywide paper. So the next question is, is a topic notable when the only reliable source we can find from a local city paper? I won't push it much further than that. It just does not seem in my mind that any of the other sources would hold up to much scrutiny. Would you be able to find any others like that one? Peace. 0nonanon0 (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How about [1] which mentions them as having a presence on the 1 May 2001 protests in London. It's on the BBC website, pretty reputable methinks! Tris2000 (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. :) Exctly what the article needed, thanks! 0nonanon0 (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is almost nothing written about any of the major political internationals and almost all the information in their articles comes from their own websites. The International Democrat Union for example has no third party sources, and the articles on the SI, LI, CDI and the Alliance of Democrats are similar. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that make it non-notable then? 0nonanon0 (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the same criteria should be used for the Anarchist International as for other political internationals. Information about these organizations is rarely available in the media or Google books but can be documented to exist and are written about in academic sources. The IDU for example was founded by leaders of conservative parties in the UK, France, US and Germany.[2] The best procedure in this type of article is to ask for expert assistance in finding better sources. BTW here is a link to a Time Magazine about the first meeting of the International (the Third Congress of Anarchist Federations) at Carrara in 1968: [3]. Incidentally there are articles about the first and second congresses: Anarchist St. Imier International and International Anarchist Congress of Amsterdam. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your point that they should all be treated the same but not your conclusion, that crappy sourcing in one makes crappy sourcing in others excusable ;). Excellent find on those sources. Please, please include them in the afforementioned articles and thanks for digging. 0nonanon0 (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I agree there should be better sources, but they are hard to find. BTW there is a conference of IDU youth this weekend in Washington. John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and Jeb Bush are guests. It will be interesting to see if it gets any media coverage. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This information is relevant in many situations. --Vindheim (talk) 10:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article deals with an global organization with too many local chapters active to be considered for deletion. --Eduen (talk) 01:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love Pump

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

I have removed the speedy tag from this article; this band was active from 1985–1992, so sources may be more difficult to locate than bands that exist today. ~~Possible reasons for deletion could be Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles and Wikipedia:Verifiability.~~ Cunard (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass music notability tests. JBsupreme (talk) 05:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked in Ian McFarlane's Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop which covers up to 1997. Love Pump did not have their own entry. National Library of Australia holdings suggest there might be something. (clearly not an a7, good move). I will inform a good editor with a good knowledge of the WA music industry. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am the original writer of the article - and used to play in the band. I thought it would be appropriate for wikipedia to have an entry precisely because of the lack of a historiography of Western Australian popular music during this period, which was highly active culturally. As I noted in the article contemporary histories of Australian rock and pop almost entirely omit the Western Australian music scene, due to undue emphasis on the Eastern States of Australia - generally written by writers from those states who had little knowledge of what was going on in WA. Naturally, this all changed with the advent of the internet, when documentation and communication was easily established. The 1980's were prior to this, so much of the source material is not online. I'm attempting to find as many references as I can in order to support the validity and notability of this article, as it was a seminal period in Western Australian popular music and the bands mentioned were key players in this historical moment. This is a fact confirmed by eg. the development of the oral history programs held by the National Library of Australia. (see references on article) Visualising (talk) 21:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Drawing a comparison to the article for a contemporary band of Love Pump, the Kryptonics (see: Kryptonics) we seem to have established more sources in order to establish eligibility. Further biographical material for notability will be incorporated. Visualising (talk) 04:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide links to the nontrivial, independent, reliable sources that establish notability? If no sources can be found, this article will be deleted. Wikipedia requires coverage in multiple reliable sources so that the information in the article can be verified by sources that are independent of the subject.
Your argument about Kryptonics is not applicable; see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? Cunard (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Problem: much of the nontrivial independent support material is not online (considering the age of this material), but I will try my best to locate some - I assume library catalogue material will be sufficient, but obviously need to absorb the wikipedia guidelines first and have a bit of time to track the material down. Bit of a noob here, trying to write a credible article as opposed to a 'vanity' one, I assure you. Fair enough about the Kryptonics article and I take your point - however, this would seem to problematise the existence of such an article that cites no references whatsoever.
I note the existence of List_of_musical_acts_from_Western_Australia that attempts an exhaustive historiography, often linking to descriptions of bands that might fail to meet wikipedia criteria as it is being argued for here. It may be worth contacting the editor/user David Gerard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Gerard who compiled the Perth Bands family tree (his magazine 'Party Fears' is referenced in the Love Pump article.) Naturally, I understand and respect wikipedia editorial probity in this.Visualising (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find print sources that are offline, please scan the newspaper articles to your computer, and then upload them to Flickr or any other photo-sharing site. Cunard (talk) 06:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do over the weekend. Visualising (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As requested I have uploaded a selection of scanned articles (reviews, adverts, notices, images) from a variety of independent sources - they are at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pmcom/sets/72157622582863558/detail/ The sources are mainly music journalists at 'The West Australian' newspaper ( The_West_Australian ), the 'Daily News' (now defunct: Daily_News_(Perth,_Western_Australia) ) and X-press or Xpress Magazine (http://www.xpressmag.com.au/ ). Note that none of these have publicly available digital archives for the period we are documenting. There are also articles from Fanzines published at the time - Party Fears - see: http://davidgerard.co.uk/pf/ User:David_Gerard and 'Vortex'. Disclaimer - I was the author of the Vortex magazine article. Many of these sources are verifiable via library search at the State Library of Western Australia - but only via librarian as they require a subscription or access to microfiche (I am not in Western Australia). Is this sufficient for verifiability? I assume we go some way towards avoiding the Notability_in_Wikipedia dilemma. I would hope from this that we could document other bands that were active at this time in order to flesh-out the historiography of Western Australian independent music that is beginning in Wikipedia. Visualising (talk) 10:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, they are via librarian but literally anyone off the street can come in and request an item "off stack" (I do it all the time). If it's rare material they send you up to the researcher's room and you need a (free to apply for) researcher's ticket, otherwise you can just browse it in the main area once it arrives. I do that all the time :) The West Australian is easier as it doesn't need requesting - you just need to walk into the microfilm room, select the microfilm you want then put it in the reader. The West is available in several other state and university libraries as well, I spotted it in SLV when I was there in 2007. Orderinchaos 16:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep coverage provided by Visualising. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources provided, notably The West Australian. From those articles, they were clearly a notable band prior to the internet generation, and have just struggled to transcend onto the web. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears notable (and I had heard of the band long prior to this debate, it used to get a bit of coverage in XPress music mag - I recall it as I was a rather early teen at the time and thought the name funny.) Orderinchaos 15:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This opens up the serious possibility of addressing - in a structured way - the extensive Hilton archives - an assiduous audiovisual and reference collection - which cover the late 1970s to 1990s indie scene in Perth - with much rare material that is unavailable elsewhere. Interesting. Visualising (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep originally I thought that it was problematic establishing the notability of the band the existed prior to the internet being established as most of the references to the band are not likely to be web-based (which seems to be the criteria that a lot of editors use - because of the ease of verifying the reference). I have previously discussed the issue with David Gerard who is now based in the UK, and whilst he agrees that at the time the references establishing notability of early Western Australian bands existed, a lot of the time these references have not necessarily been retained - although some do exist in library archives as is the case with Love Pump. One day when I get the time I intend to go through the Battye Library and see if I can't document the actual references contained there to support a number of early bands. Anyway to cut this ramble short - I support the retention of the article for the reasons establsihed above. Dan arndt (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources that Visualising (talk · contribs) posted on Flickr establish that this band passes the notability guidelines. My deletion nomination is no longer applicable. Cunard (talk) 07:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment By whom, when and how is the 'deletion' nomination deleted? I assume there is a process for this higher up the editorial chain? I'll be following Cunard's advice re citation etc. over the next few days. Visualising (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD debate will be closed at around 23:27, 18 October 2009, which is seven days after the article was nominated for deletion. An uninvolved administrator will close it, or even a non-admin could close this since Love Pump will most certaintly be kept. Best, Cunard (talk) 06:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virtucity

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

City building/simulation game with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:RS and WP:N. -Teancum (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notability. Also delete OpenCity and many of the other things in the See also sections of those pages. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly non notable. Delete the See Also articles too. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g3, vandalism, obvious hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shego (TV series)

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

Contested PROD. Not a single source to justify, and so fails WP:CRYSTAL. Not a single hit on Google outside here. Rodhull andemu 23:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a WP:HOAX. talking birds 20:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stanga

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

Obvious vanity article, apparently autobiographical, about non-notable college kid/hobbyist. Could have been speedied. Orange Mike | Talk 22:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. And possesses a temper when challenged. JNW (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. Skarebo (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable, also clear WP:COI issues. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, JNW, Skarebo, Peter Ballard, and author's block. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Drdisque (talk) 21:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G3 Jclemens (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse richardson's loaded dice

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

Does not meet WP:NOTABLE and is a large, unruly, and poorly done article. Mostly, its the NOTABLE one though. Nezzadar (speak) 22:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PLOT for the most precise reason for deletion. Nezzadar (speak) 22:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; also appears to have been cut and pasted from elsewhere. JNW (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it was copied and pasted it wasn't from a place in the Google index. I tried searching for a few of the alleged character and episode names and came up absolutely blank. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant hoax or no context or no assertion of notability. The author has no article. No indication of notability is given. In fact, no context is given as to where, when or how they were allegedly published. Google has absolutely nothing on the subject. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 01:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to defenestration. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping out of windows

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

Content fork from suicide methods; neither subject matter nor content strikes me as encyclopedic. Orange Mike | Talk 22:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also considerably duplicates/overlaps defenestration. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Really? This is an encyclopedic article? I don't think so. I agree it should be put into a section on suicides, but not this. Also note that defenestration is when someone else thtows you out a window, not when you yourself jump. They are different. Nezzadar (speak) 22:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Acts of jumping out of windows should be included somewhere, and wherever it is should be either a part of defenestration or linked to defenestration. As for defenestration itself, the etymology suggests that the emphasis should be put on "out of a window", and not necessarily how the object or person came to leave the window towards the ground. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Moreover, this article should be fixed up, not deleted, if the only complaint is its lack of encyclopedicness. Otherwise, your argument seems to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. — Rickyrab | Talk 23:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either keep or include as part of Defenestration. Consensus on the Defenestration page kept me from including notable incidents of people jumping out of windows in the defenestration article, leading me to create a new article concerning the jumping of people out of windows. There are a number of reasons why I felt this subject belonged on defenestration, but there was strong opposition on that article's talk page, due to people regarding defenestration as merely the act of throwing people or things out of windows, even though jumping from a window is an act of throwing oneself from a window. — Rickyrab | Talk 22:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge into defenestration. Grutness...wha? 23:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as above - we don't need this article any more than we would need driving a motorcycle above and beyond motorcycle or eating corn above and beyond corn. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably move it to "Suicide by jumping" so it can more broadly include jumping from roofs, bridges, aircraft, etc. — CharlotteWebb 14:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with defenestration is fine providing that instances of jumping out windows is not introduced there. The "thrown" part is integral to the concept of defenestration, as evidenced by it's alternative definition meaning to be forcibly removed from a position (e.g.: [4] OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What content, then, would you merge (given the exact scope of this article about jumping out of windows)? I don't follow. — CharlotteWebb 19:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - All of the events in the "Notable acts in history" section would be fine with the exception of the Sept 11th and Triangle Shirtwaist items (as in each of the other cases, there was suspicion that the individual was forced out of the window by another hand). This is the current consensus at Talk:Defenestration that Rickyrab alluded to. I don't see the usefulness of any of the items in the "Fiction" section. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not really a merge with "defenestration", that's a hidden "delete" vote, and the act of jumping out of a window is either a notable form of defenestration or a notable phenomenon in its own right. Since consensus at Talk:Defenestration opposed including acts of jumping out of windows, I created the article on "Jumping out of windows". Ohnoitsjamie's idea (and, indeed, Talk:Defenestration consensus) fail to solve the problem concerning self-defenestration, which is the act of someone throwing oneself out of a window. — Rickyrab | Talk 20:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Hmmm...[5][6][7]"According to Hernando County, Fla., sheriff's deputies, the victim was driving home when he noticed someone lean out of a window and throw something, reported the St. Petersburg Times." Does that count as a defenestration? — Rickyrab | Talk 20:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Whatever you call it, it's preserving the existing consensus at Defenestration. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per CSD A9. Stormie (talk) 04:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Face The Facts – EP

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

Subject fails to meet the notability requirements of WP:Notable as well as the requirements of WP:Albums. The album is not notable, and the band's article was recently itself deleted for failure to meet the notability requirements - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/I_Saw_This_Coming. JohnInDC (talk) 22:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nominator's reasons. Also, "according to the pamphlet" is not a source. Nezzadar (speak) 22:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: db-album. Joe Chill (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spiral Universe

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

Non-notable company which doesn't even have any products on the market yet. Seems a little early for this company's inclusion in wikipedia. Oscarthecat (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I have a WP:COI and I worked at the company, but there are no secondary sources cited since they are not available. Although I was promised international secondary sources from the company (where it does most of its business), which I requested when I sought to create an article for a company that I perceived as notable, I was not given these sources. If I receive said sources I will change my vote and/or bring to DRV if it is after the AFD. Andre (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BURDEN, Andre is welcome to recreate it if sources appear, of course. Miami33139 (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per noms Drdisque (talk) 21:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted as attack page by Fastily. Non-admin closure. JohnCD (talk) 21:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David keele

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

Nothing but juvenile nonsense. Friginator (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete -- attack page.
Speedy delete as attack; tagged {{db-atk}} and blanked. JohnCD (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcatbird

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

Non-notable character in a MMORPG. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Absolutely not-notable MMORPG player. Random Time 21:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy. a7 Mystache (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete for inherent non-notability of subject. Ben Kidwell (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator of this article, Phil Durst (talk · contribs) wrote the following in a {{hangon}} tag that he placed on the article:

All of the above information is factual and can be seen as factual via the references. If this page has been tagged for deletion because Proof that the character exsists can not be found then I have absolutely no issue giving you multiple links that clearly show the exsistance of this MMO Character. I feel that this AFD may have come about due to a flaw in the references. Let me know how I can prove to you the legitimacy of the above article.

Cunard (talk) 23:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet the requirements of WP:N.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak tentative transwiki to wowwiki.com, very strong delete. No independent reliable sources to indicate this passes our inclusion guidelines. Nice one, though.MLauba (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is not notable and there are no reliable sources for verifiability. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G12 Jclemens (talk) 04:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Sainathuni Sarath Babuji

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

Extreme POV/COI, such as would require a complete rewrite to be encyclopedic. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Despite the extremely non-encyclopedic tone of the current article, this guy does seem to be a pretty notable guru. Requiring a complete rewrite is not a reason to delete an article, it is a reason to completely rewrite it. That said, my attempts to find sources of information are turning up huge amounts of hits, but not much in the way of reliable sources. Ben Kidwell (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 09:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 09:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio of [8] or some derivative page. Mangoe (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars

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

Following the curt and rather supercilious removal of a PROD tag without explanation by Colonel Warden I have no alternative but to list the article for deletion. Read over the reasoning behind my initial tag, and do bear in mind that Wikipedia is not Top Trumps :) ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 20:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep- a reasonably encyclopedic topic that's certainly sourceable and possible to do without delving into OR. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, come on. "Similarities—both titles feature the word "Star" at the beginning." It's ludicrous. ╟─Treasury Tag►draftsman─╢ 20:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So ludicrous that the Denver Post has an article directly on topic: [9]. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a newspaper column. We do not decide on what topics to have articles on the basis of what the Denver Post publishes (admirable publication as it no doubt is); they print what will appeal to their readers from a commercial and journalistic standpoint. We, on the other hand, are trying to produce an encyclopedia. The fact that newspapers have material on the fusion/comparison/whatever of two subjects does not automatically immunise it from criticism over here at Wikipedia. ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 20:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are you implying that, "Similarities—both titles feature the word 'Star' at the beginning," isn't ludicrous and unencyclopedic?! ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 20:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nominator has failed to engage with the article at its talk page. Proposed deletion tags are for uncontroversial deletions which does not include articles which have already been contested at AFD. Removal of such tags is to be expected and so is not the occasion for an AFD renomination contrary to our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard that one must discuss an article on its talk page before AfDing. Also I suspect (based on the other AfD below) that his motives for nominating this one are based on his understanding of WP's general mission (right or wrong), not on any specific problems with this article that could be fixed. (i.e. the article by its very nature has no place on WP, there is nothing to discuss on its talk page.) Northwestgnome (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have any issue with an article, you should first discuss it on the article's talk page which is provided for that purpose. Please see our deletion policy which states, "Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted; if there was a previous nomination, check that your objections haven't already been dealt with. If there is no discussion then start one, outlining your concerns. Then watch for responses from interested editors.". Or, if one has general issues with Wikipedia's mission, they should be taken to general forums such as Village Pump. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. However he does not have an issue with the article itself. He has an issue with the article being on WP. Not because it is a bad article. I think it is a good article on a subject which I enjoy myself. I would love to read this article on a SW or ST fan blog. However I think an encyclopedia is for facts, not comparisons. I voted to Keep this article because in this case the comparisons which have been made in WP:Reliable sources are themselves notable and worth an article. Also he does not want to change WP policy he just wants it to be enforced (and understood) by the WP community. How do I know what he thinks? Because I have Vulcan/Jedi mind reading powers. Thanks again.Northwestgnome (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Comparison of Vulcan and Jedi mind reading powers :-) Pointillist (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not all "comparison of..." articles are appropriately encyclopedic, but some definitely are. One way of determining what comparison articles are appropriate is whether or not significant media outlets have found the comparison to be newsworthy or interesting in some way. As referenced above, these two franchises have often been the subject of comparison by notable media sources, and Wikipedia notability as a matter of policy is often determined precisely by what newspapers choose to print. This is obviously not a completely parallel case to that of determining notability for an individual, but the same general principles apply. Ben Kidwell (talk) 21:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rewrite, and retitle to "Comparisons of Star Trek and Star Wars." This article should report on notable comparisons made between the two in reliable sources, but not itself compare them. That's the job of magazine articles and blogs, not encyclopedias, as I said below on another AfD on this page. Northwestgnome (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Geeky subject but...appears to be well sourced. Ikip (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the nominator says "I have no alternative but to list the article for deletion". It may come as a surprise but he had; he could have fixed the article by editing. This is a sourced article for which I see no basis for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At last, something that Star Trek and Star Wars fans agree upon. Still, the title should probably be moved to something else. This is mostly about the good-natured rivalry between the fans of two epic franchises, isn't it? The "similarities" and "differences" section is remarkably moronic and doesn't do justice to either series. Seriously, "Both franchises are set in outer space, both titles feature the word 'Star' at the beginning..." (Hmmm... Star Trek, Star Wars... Captain, I detect a pattern here.) Mandsford (talk) 23:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I have also been trying to say. The article should be about the fan rivalry and about more intellectual comparisons which have been published. Not a list of simularities and differences. If this was done then no problem with this article. Northwestgnome (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Deletion rationale isn't convincing... if it's guaranteed to be original research/POV, that implies there are no sources comparing Star Wars and Star Trek, but that's not the case... there are plenty of sources, and some are even cited in the article already. It's also not redundant to the main articles on the franchises, as it's unlikely they could devote much space to comparisons between eachother, so this article will have much more detailed information than they could provide. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep though it needs improvement (badly) that's not a reason to delete. We've got a documentary on the topic and an article by Brin. I think the topic is notable. Plus, I'm unsure why one would prod an article that has been to AfD/VfD so many times. That's not what a prod is for... Hobit (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs a refocus, per Northwestgnome. i see 3 areas this article could be discussing: the fictional universes of the franchises, the business strategies of the franchises, and the rivalry between fan bases. If it focuses mostly on the latter two, and keeps finding reliable sources that document this separate from us, ok. I think the fear is that it can appear to be more fancruft (comparing fictional universes and doing original research in the process), which it could easily become. I think just enough evidence is presented to justify an article here, so if people like working on it, ok by me. Note: this subject should probably be documented as a crass business strategy to increase sales of product, similar to the Beatles/Stones "rivalry". doesnt make it any less real or notable, just sad.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think marketers are that smart. :-) Also if reliable sources compare the universes that should be covered too.Northwestgnome (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Cool, well sourced, article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very notable subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with any article which brings together two distinctly notable topics, notability of the concept must be demonstrated by referencing significant coverage from reliable independent sources to demonstrate that a standalone article is justified. The coverage in this article is trivial in nature to say the least: it does not contain anything but trival details about the two genres (e.g. "Both franchises are set in outer space"), and some of the opinons expressed are pure original research (e.g. Each franchise's popularity is marked by a drop in another). --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to me to be an editing issue since there are oodles of reliable independent sources with substantial coverage of this subject. For example here's one from Sunday, October 11, 2009 [10]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well cited material. Unusual but encyclopedic material. Alyeska (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find your lack of keep disturbing. It is not logical. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that is supposed to be a !vote, you'll need to include a rationale. ╟─Treasury Tag►prorogation─╢ 17:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would, but CoM covered it nicely.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to oodles (thanks to CoM for using one of my favorite words) of reliable sources, and sheer awesomeness. I could contribute about 15,000 words of original research on this subject, were Wikipedia to allow it. Should really be titled "Why Star Trek is better than Star Wars" though. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Prod wasn't remotely appropriate for such a hotly contested article. There are plenty of sources that directly compare the two franchises in adequate depth. Now, what about Comparison between Harry Potter and Star Wars... Fences&Windows 22:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the dozens of reasons listed above. Abyssal (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sole Soul (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while consensus can change, it is not likely in this case. This has beeen repeatedly kept by the Community. Bearian (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any reason to keep per se, or are you just saying that? ╟─Treasury Tag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 05:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't just !vote, and I am very well known in this community for saving articles at WP:AfD, as may be seen from my user page. Yes, I like it, of course; I'm a geek. I just attended Albacon and I write fan fiction, which must be in my blood as one of sisters created one of the first fanzines (hmm, that's another idea for an article about a BLP). For what it's worth, this is a valid article; it is well-referenced and encyclopedic. I assumed (please see WP:AGF) that was unstated. Bearian (talk) 15:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I think it is snowing. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If several newspapers/magazines that meet WP:RS run articles on a topic especially over a period of a few years, the topic is almost guaranteed to be encyclopedic. I can't think of an exception and this article certainly isn't one of them. --Firefly322 (talk) 07:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I supported its deletion last time this came up, the current version of the article is vastly different to its previous (deleted) incarnations. It still needs careful monitoring and occasional trimming for unsupported OR, synthesis, and fanboy material, but it now contains sources that support the existence of the debate and is largely limited to verifiable information. EyeSerene^talk 10:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep, as notability has been asserted and the subject is adequately covered in reliable sources. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is properly covered by reliable sources. Edward321 (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per almost everyone else here. Notability is asserted and the article includes multiple reliable sources, including Forbes and the New York Times. Rray (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems that existing WP policy allows such an article to exist (as far as I know) but I feel that we are pushing the boundaries of what an encyclopaedia is. Encyclopaedias are collections of facts. Comparisons are not really factual and are open to a POV. Is there need for a new policy? The article is not quite WP:CRUFTCRUFT! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE that there is a similar discussion going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Australian and New Zealand governments . -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Are we getting a little systemic bias in the voting due to the possibility of a high number of science fiction fans on WP? Just asking. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity (clothing)

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

I am not sure about the notability. Was afraid to CSD. Lourie Pieterse 19:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems a bit promotional in tone but 200 stores in 27 states (assuming that unsourced information is accurate) seems to give it roughly similar notability to many other businesses we have articles about. I just did a casual check on the stores in my local mall and all of them seem to have articles similar to this, so I think notability for retail chains of this size has established consensus. Ben Kidwell (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. meets wp:corp and isnt terribly advert-y. Mystache (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup; significant-sized chain with non-trivial history and I'm sure there're sources somewhere. Most of the retail articles suck because nobody can be bothered to add any freaking sources. I did find one but otherwise I'm having a hard time making Google understand. Can someone with better Google-fu PLEASE help? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TenPoundHammer. I've Googled for the words Vanity, Inc. This way one gets the most accurate results. Kind regards, Lourie Pieterse 12:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Junior OGAE Second Chance Contest 2009

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

Another string of hoax "contest" articles, a speciality of this author Cuchufleta (talk · contribs). Two have been PRODded, but with the last set of hoaxes a PROD was removed and we had to go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Junior Eurovision Dance Contest, so it will probably save time to bring them here. There are no such contests - nothing but WP in Google, nothing in News; all the references are to the real OGAE Second Chance Contest and Junior Eurovision Song Contest. JohnCD (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete both the references seems to be for unrelated competitions - sign of hoax. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Graeme Bartlett. (Especially with links to unrelated Contests.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete, deliberate hoax. User Cuchufleta has also created and been misusing with hoaxes article about real forthcoming event Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2011 and may have also been involved under IP into a recently deleted hoax article Spain in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2009. As per talk page of user, looks that couple of more deliberate hoax articles about the "contests" he created have been deleted, such as Global song contest etc. He is usually using real references, but pointing to the other similarily named contests. AlexeyU (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Adunka

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

A user contested the PROD with the rationale 'Plays in "The Austrian Football Bundesliga" which "is the highest-ranking national league club competition in Austrian football" according to WP articles, so passes WP:ATHLETE'. However, he has played no games so he fails ATHLETE, and there are no sources about him except squad profiles so he fails WP:GNG. Delete as nominator. -- Big Dom 18:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the user who contested the PROD, if he's not actually played in any games for his team at that level, then go ahead and un-AfD and re-PROD the article. However, how come he's part of the team if he doesn't play for them, please? --Arkelweis (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he is part of the team, but he's a young player who hasn't made any first team appearances yet so unfortunately he fails WP:ATHLETE. I can't un-AfD it now, we'll have to see what others want to do with the article on here. -- Big Dom 20:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'no-rePRODing' is to stop multiple attempts to PROD an article after it's been demonstrated that it's deletion is contentious (by having the PROD removed): if the original dePRODder withdraws their de-PROD, then i'd say this is a case for 'ignoring all rules' and just unAfDing it and putting the PROD back up, as the PROD is no longer contentious; however, someone has !voted 'keep', so I guess it makes sence to go through with the AfD. --Arkelweis (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he's not played in the Austrian Bundesliga, therefore he's not notable. (@ Arkelweis - after an article's been dePRODded, it can't be rePRODded.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now. He is listed on the squad and has been covered in local sport news [11]. That seems good enoguh for me; a situation comparable to an NFL rookie who has been drafted and signed but not yet started. If he leaves without an app, Id gladly change my vote. Mystache (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't yet played in a game. "Local sports news" isn't enough, as that fails both WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP. Oh, and saying "leave him in case he plays" violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. Giant Snowman 12:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

however, as it seems that he may well become notable, if the result is 'delete' can we instead 'archive' somewhere, as we may well have justification in recreating the article later? --Arkelweis (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All deleted articles are automatically archived to a place from which an admin can retrieve them if required...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per DitzyNizzy and GiantSnowman. Eddie6705 (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hasn't played first team football Spiderone 13:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE Steve-Ho (talk) 19:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

St. Cloud State Storm Chase Club

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

Possible conflict of interest. Small college organization; most references are primary , with several from local media--as stated at WP:NOTABILITY, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability. See also Michael Stanga. JNW (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and author's block. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedily per Orangemike and WP:SNOW — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blocker of author. Daniel Case (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - non-notable local club. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:N. May qualify for speedy A7, just like another page by the same authors TheWxPage.Com (triple deleted). Skarebo (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not notable. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanispam -Drdisque (talk) 21:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chosty: A Real Hero

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

No sources that establish notability or even verifiability that this has been published outside the Internet; seems very likely to be one person's unfinished creation. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original prodder. WP:N, WP:V, WP:MADEUP. Literally zero Ghits save for WP. Tim Song (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see anything on the Internet about this superhero. He's not notable, and I don't see a reliable source about him. Techman224^Talk 21:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A classic made-up-in-school one day deletion. This is much better executed than most. I guess BJAODN has been moved to other servers, if anyone is still updating it this seems like a nice piece of work for it. Ben Kidwell (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Tikiwont (talk) 19:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Age: The Freeze Up

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

User removed PROD, so I was told to bring it here to avoid an edit war. The problem is that I cant find anything indicating that this is real on google. Tim1357 (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete nothing on google news. blatent hoax UltraMagnus^speak 17:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could only find 4 results on Google; 2 from Wikipedia (the article up for nomination and the supposed director of it), 1 from a site that just lists Wikipedia terms, and 1 from a UFC Wiki (which was odd). Seems like a hoax. TJ Spyke 17:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The directors article was modified by the same user who created the article to include "the freeze up"Tim1357 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the page was originally a redirect to "Ice Age The Melt Down", shouldn't we restore that?Tim1357 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Obvious hoax created by serial socker. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrogear

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

Article is extremely short and cites no sources. The article is linked to only by a disambiguation page (pyro). Revision history consists only of poorly-spelled "content" added by a single author that was then reformatted by other users. A google search for "pyrogear" only turns up an unrelated company. As it stands, the article consists of a definition of a term that the author appears to have made up. Pyrochem (talk) 16:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per this and this. Wonder whether it is a hoax. Pmlineditor ∞ 17:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In any case, Wikipedia is not a dictionary --Cedders^tk 18:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Materialscientist (talk) 10:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BURDEN Miami33139 (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Badunkadunk

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

Disambiguation with nowhere to point, really. The first item redirects to a list, the third is only a partial match ("Honky Tonk Badonkadonk"), and the other two don't have potential for articles. There's really no point in a dab with only one exact match and two other items that have no potential as articles (Badonkadonk was deleted a while back as a dicdef). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks like a good disambiguation to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plausible targets all seem fine to me. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and I expanded it). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Australian and New Zealand governments

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

Also Comparison of Canadian and United States governments and Comparison of United States and United Kingdom governments. ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 16:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is essentially an essay better suited to a dissertation than an encyclopedia. Either it simply duplicates the content of the extensive articles on each country's system of government (which means it is redundant), or it compares from a non-neutral standpoint, making value judgements and tending towards a conclusion (which means it is biased and POV). Wikipedia is not a political consultancy, nor is it a game of Top Trumps. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 16:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and unbundle for a relist if required. All three pages are on encyclopaedic topics but with major issues in the execution. However, the sourcing differs between them as does the content. Simply not suitable for a bundled nomination. I would add that Comparison of Canadian and United States governments is well-referenced. No indication that WP:BEFORE has been followed. No attempt has been made to clean up nor has consideration been given to merging as a section in the relevant 'relations' article. TerriersFan (talk) 17:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm not arguing anything to which WP:BEFORE applies. I clearly stated in my nomination that either the articles are entirely neutral (in which case they merely duplicate, and are redundant to, the individual states' articles), or they aren't neutral, in which case the best that could happen is that they be made neutral, in which case they merely duplicate, and are redundant to, the individual states' articles. I don't think that that sort of page is appropriate for Wikipedia. ╟─Treasury Tag►CANUKUS─╢ 17:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles comparing and contrasting the government systems of closely connected countries are an entirely proper Wikipedia subject and I see no reason why they can't be cleaned up and sourced. "they merely duplicate, and are redundant to, the individual states' articles" is not correct. The individual countries articles do not carry out this comparison. It is not sensible to add the comparison to the individual articles because you would have essentially the same information added to each country article; wholly inefficient. However, if there is not enough sourced material available for a separate article then a section in the relations articles should be considered. WP:BEFORE is, of course, relevant. Alternatives to deletion should always be considered first. TerriersFan (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a representative example, take this sentence from one of the articles: "In Australia, John Howard's conservative government supported the war, while the Left-leaning Clark administration in New Zealand opposed it." In the main Politics of Australia article or whatever, it will say, "John Howard's conservative government supported the war," and in the Politics of New Zealand article it will say, "The Left-leaning Clark administration in New Zealand opposed the war." It's just Top Trumps. ╟─Treasury Tag►co-prince─╢ 17:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All!!! As wonderful as these articles are (or may be) they are WP:Original research. An encyclopedia's job is to give information not make comparisons. There are other venues for that. WP would not have articles comparing French food to Italian food, J.R.R. Tolkien to Rudyard Kipling, the Ford Mustang to the Chevy Camaro, etc. That's the job of other venues, especially magazines and blogs. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good argument, I never thought of that actually! Well done. ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 17:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's cute but not valid. Work your way through the categories in Category:Comparisons, for example. TerriersFan (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean a bit like WP:OTHERCRAP? ╟─Treasury Tag►consulate─╢ 17:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars is an article. I almost used that as an example. Perhaps my instinct warned me. :-) Again I am not saying these things should not be compared. They should be. Just not in an encyclopedia. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all problems with Neutrality, referencing, original research etc are entirely fixable. Comparison articles prevent you having to read (potentially reams of) virtually identical information in both articles to find the differences, which may be under-reported as they're only really significant in reference to how they differ from another, closely-related government. Also, contrasting different 'types' of 'thing' is a good way of illustrating/explaining 'type' and/or 'thing', and is a quick way of getting familiar with, e.g., the US government if you already have knowledge of the UK government; all of which == encyclopaedic imo --Arkelweis (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 19:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 19:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Terriersfan and Arkelweis. The articles have issues but those can be fixed without deleting and starting from scratch (or not starting at all). I would argue that these topics could be suitable for both a dissertation/essay and an encyclopedia article. The WP:OR argument doesn't really hold water in my mind; comparative government obviously isn't something new and unresearched. Finding references is the real problem, and that's no reason to delete an article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Even if such articles were referenced and an attempt made at being NOPV, it is pushing the limits of what WP is all about. Encyclopedias are collections of facts (!) and a comparison would be beyond this boundary. Also, it opens up the need for an extensive set of articles comparing every country with all others. I don't think we should go there. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I'm still of the opinion that, because one can compare and contrast anything with anything, this isn't a direction that we should be going in. What I see here is a series of articles to explain the rest of the world to Americans, Britons, Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, rather than promoting a global view. What I see here is encouraging myriad OR essays-- Mexico and Guatemala, Ghana and Botswana, Russia and Belarus, Spain and Bahrain, etc. But the worst problem I see is true of any type of original research -- there are some tasks that people should do for themselves, rather than depending on other people to do it for them. Ideally, an American should learn about another nation's government from a Wikipedia article, and then draw his or her own conclusions about the similarities and differences (i.e, there are 105 Canadian Senators vs. 100 United States Senators). I'm sure this type of article is great for a college or high school assignment, but it's not great for Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Encyclopedias are collections of facts (!)" -- x differs from y in way z is a statement of fact. there's no reason why it couldn't be referenced and included in an article of similar facts. Also, there's nothing wrong with an article contrasting and comparing Mexico and Guatemala, for example -- it would both illustrate (by comparason) both Mexico and Guatemala better, and allow easyer understanding of Mexico for people already familiar with Guatemala (e.g., Guatemalans), and vice-a-versa. --Arkelweis (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all While there may be a place for a high-level overview of differences between western democracies, there certainly isn't room for N^2 such articles. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add refs to this long established article on anotable topic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all There should be no place in Wikipedia for what are essentially unreferenced POV essays with large helpings of original research. Comparison of United States and United Kingdom governments is riddled with so many inaccuracies and hackneyed stereotypes it is difficult to know where to begin. These three articles are an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Lamberhurst (talk) 07:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. By definition, something where a writer gives his or her 2 cents worth on what's similar, what's different, is going to violate both WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I predict, however, that this will close as a no consensus, without even acknowledging those two core Wikipedia principles. That said, I frankly can't imagine that anyone would consult an article of this nature unless they were already familiar with one system and had been asked to compare it against another; and that that the asking would be in the form of an assignment in a civics class. Cut, paste, use the online thesaurus to change some words, voila! Next Thursday's assignment taken care of. If it's an exam question, make sure to have your iPhone with you. I agree, these are an embarrassment, but no consensus usually trumps principle. Mandsford (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If they're "an embarrassment to Wikipedia", then fix them --Arkelweis (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an easy fix. Someone can make articles called Government of Australia, Government of Canada, Government of New Zealand, Government of the United Kingdom and Government of the United States. Or maybe someone can make an article called Comparison of governments of places that most of the Wikipedia editors come from, with some tables. Mandsford (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 100% with Mandsford: what's the point in investing time improving an article based on elements drawn from Her Majesty's Government and Foreign relations of the United Kingdom which have been "reinterpreted" in the light of the views of the writer? Anyone who genuinely cares about Wikipedia will vote to have this article and the two others deleted. Lamberhurst (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I looked through those articles, and couldn't find anything discussing how the UK government differs from the US government, leaving me to do my own original research to figure it out rather than, say, relying on expert opinion as presented to me in an encyclopaedia article on, say, differences between the UK and US governments. --Arkelweis (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny that - I looked through the Comparison of United States and United Kingdom governments article and couldn't find discussion of any differences there either. Just a list of POV "facts" about the UK and US. Based on your reasoning, I could create Comparison of George Bush and Barack Obama and just copy entire sections from the existing pages on both individuals (adding in my own two cents of course), whilst hoping that one day my eminently non-notable article will be transformed by other editors into "expert opinion". Lamberhurst (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, tho It'd be better if you did it correctly from the very beginning. btw, 'expert opinion' would mean 'based on comparisons which are cited to valid sources' (such as the stuff attributed to "Hauss, Charles. Comparative Politics. (Thompson-Wadsworth 2005)"). If you want to improve the article by deleting stuff, why not go through, pick 'facts', and -- if you cannot verify them -- delete just those 'facts' (or mention that you suspect they're crap on the talk-page, or add a ^{[citation needed]} tag), whilst citing any facts that you can? That'd stop them 'being embarrassments to wikipedia' whilst also actually adding useful content. I've added a refimprove template, lets keep for now and see if it improves some --Arkelweis (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all because they violate WP:NOT and WP:OR. A neat idea, perhaps, but not what we're here for. Also very much a slippery slope: Comparison of Malawi and Ecuador, Comparison of Calcutta and Tipperary, etc. That the differences between these pairs are interesting and have attracted scholarly mention is true, but these are far more logically discussed at Culture of Canada, Canadian identity, Politics of New Zealand, and a slew of other articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

then why isn't your vote to merge? --Arkelweis (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because the texts are uncited messes better started from scratch. I suppose we could redirect somewhere as a lest resort. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all This is not only original research, it is also contrary to the provision that wikipedia is not a manual - hypothetical users who can't already understand the potential differences by comparing, on their own, the countless articles dedicated to each of the two terms of comparison can't really be helped much, no matter how much we dumb down the message. Dahn (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The question we should ask ourself is: Are there researchers performing a comparative study of, say, the governments of the United States and Canada? It seems from that article that there are, and indeed quite a few books were published on this. Therefore it seems that this is a notable topic, and the nominator's claim that there is no room for such articles on WP seems wrong to me. --Zvika (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP is blurring the line between news and encyclopaedia. If we allow these sorts of article to exist on WP we would be blurring the line between an encyclopaedia and a book. The subject of these article can easily be a mention in the "Politics of Foo" articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. There are so many combinations of comparisons you can make and, as the articles stand, they're poorly written and very sparsely referenced. The content is covered in a wider sense in the articles associated with Forms of government. There's no need to go into such needless specifics. Rennell435 (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Rennell435 or anyone else seeking deletion: I disagree strongly with the proposition that there's no way to draw a line between notable comparisons between major governments and non-notable comparisons between minor governments. We already make that distinction regularly for articles on diplomatic relations between various pairs of sovereign nations. If it was so problematic to determine which were notable and which weren't, we wouldn't keep Australia–Canada relations and delete Iraq-Malta relations (and yes, the latter article did exist before it was successfully AfD'd with my support). For the record, I wouldn't support an article comparing the Iraqi and Maltese governments! A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nomination. These articles are redundant to articles on each of the national governments and the relevant bilateral relations articles. Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Original research. Daveosaurus (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, per the original AFD. If an anonymous editor with one edit on WP:REFUND would like to take this to WP:DRV, he may. But this restoration and new AFD was out of line.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrevan (talk • contribs)

Secret Maryo Chronicles

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

Procedural nom (sorry to those who hate these). IP editor requested a new AfD instead of a G4 speedy on this, saying the article has sources that were not in the 2005 version that was deleted via discussion. (Which is true.) No opinion (yet) on deletion. Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I fail to see any reason to delete this really UltraMagnus^speak 17:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are all very trivial, non-significant coverage. They all seem to be top 10 free games list which certainly does not classify as usable sourcing for an article. Also, I just removed 2 sources which were dead links, leaving one source which is not reliable per WP:RS. Finally, this should not have been restored and brought to a new AFD, rather to WP:DRV, so the nominator is out of line as well. Regardless this is a clear delete. Andre (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fatal System Error

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

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Google hits seem all to be store listings and remarks from the publisher. No evidence of notability. And how can it be hailed when it hasn't been published yet and the author hasn't even decided on a name for one of the characters yet? —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no significant content, and work not published until next year. --Cedders^tk 18:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Nezzadar (speak) 23:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Learning by Osmosis

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

I declined this article's G3 speedy. Apparently it's a hoax, but I don't know enough about the subject to decide. Is it a hoax? Should it be deleted? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the one who speedied it -- the article is sort of amusing, but everything in it is absurd. Professor Van Nostrum! The references are deliberately formatted to make them hard to look up -- they exist, but have absolutely nothing to do with the topic, for example PMID 3651227 is one of them. Looie496 (talk) 14:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Should have been speedied as patent nonsense. D. J. Cartwright (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe we should sleep on it. Mandsford (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a pure speculation. Materialscientist (talk) 10:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Halderman

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

Per WP:BLP1E JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nom. This is a textbook case of BLP1E. Joe Halderman is the man accused of blackmailing David Letterman. Prior to his arrest he was a producer at CBS News. A search of Google News finds that though he was mentioned in connection with some programs and (according to Internet Movie Database) was up for an Emmy, which he did not win, he did not by any means meet the criteria in WP:CREATIVE. There is no independent sourcing pertaining to this person, apart from the Letterman controversy, and the only non-Letterman source cited in the article is IMDB, which is not a reliable source. And even IMDB does not substantiate claim made in article that he is a multiple award winner of the Emmy and the DuPont award, as it only shows the one Emmy nomination. The article was created after the Letterman incident, and this person's notability relates only to that incident.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Six days into the AfD process and the only person in favour of deletion is the nom. Just saying, is all. cat yronwode, not logged in, sorry, just passing by; and, yes, i concensed below. :-) 64.142.90.33 (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Contrary to popular belief, WP:BLP1E is not a guideline, but an essay.~~ (Mandsford proven wrong) In any event, Halderman would be notable for more than being an extortionist, having been a producer of 48 Hours. We don't have a separate article about the extortion of David Letterman (or at least I hope that we don't), although it is well described in the Letterman article from Letterman's perspective; it would be inappropriate to provide a lot of information about Halderman in an article about his victim. The primary function of an encyclopedia is to serve as a place where people can learn more about a subject that interests them, and there are people who would want to know more about Joe Halderman, a very accomplished journalist who is charged with attempting to use the information-gathering skills of a journalist in commission of a felony. Mandsford (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI think it's necessary for me to correct an erroneous statement in the preceding comment. WP:BLP1E is policy. It is not an "essay" or a guideline. It is a section of the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Thanks. Mandsford (talk) 18:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Halderman is no longer a low-profile individual, and his profile isn't going down; therefore, to whatever extent the terms of BLP1E are policy, they don't apply to him. Just as important, he seems to have sufficient professional recognition for independent notability -- the Emmy nomination for the Beslan documentary which he wrote, produced, and directed should clearly establish notability, even the other awards/noms need better referencing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. His film got a fairly big arthouse release as I recall [12]. --Cedders^tk 18:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. It seems that even without his arrest on charges of extortion, Halderman would be notable enough based on his career. I'm surprised there wasn't already an article on him or his documentary after it was nominated for an Emmy! In any case, the extortion case only adds to his notability. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. He actually was notable enough to have had an entry prior to this. Add more refs; don't delete the article. Catherineyronwode (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I also agree. This is a famous person in his own right. And now that this major scandal has broken out it would be a glaring omission for Wikipedia not to have an entry. --Marcperkel (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If all the stuff re: his career pre-scandal can be properly sourced, then keep. Otherwise delete. DS (talk) 11:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Australia–Canada relations. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Australian and Canadian governments

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

This page is essentially an essay better suited to a dissertation than an encyclopedia. Either it simply duplicates the content of the extensive articles on each country's system of government (which means it is redundant), or it compares from a non-neutral standpoint, making value judgements and tending towards a conclusion (which means it is biased and POV). Wikipedia is not a political consultancy, nor is it a game of Top Trumps. ╟─Treasury Tag►directorate─╢ 13:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not quite the same as the comparison of presidential candidates' positions in 2008, the article below this one. This is a very interesting essay, which is true about a lot of original synthesis. However, almost anything can be compared and contrasted with anything else, and to have a comparison between the governments of Australia and Canada is to open the door to the same type of comparison between any other two governments-- U.S. and Canada, Canada and Britain, Britain and France, France and Haiti, Haiti and Pakistan, etc. I think the author has some valuable insights, and can make contributions to the separate articles about the governmental systems in both nations. I'd support an article about comparison of multiple nations within the British Commonwealth, but "Nation x and Nation y" are often examined for the precedent that they set. Mandsford (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, I disagree with the assertion that this cannot be a topic for both an encyclopedia article and a dissertation/essay. Although there are obvious problems with the article, and much of it may be "original synthesis" as Mandsford pointed out, comparative government articles themselves are hardly WP:OR by their nature. Comparisons like this one, comparing major world governments, are deserving of an article. This article can certainly be improved, and the case for deletion has not been made in my opinion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But then we start drawing a line, if this is all right as long it involves "major world governments", but not all right if it involves "lesser" nations. Ideally, someone should compare the information from the separate articles about Australia and Canada, and draw his or her own conclusions. Mandsford (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for Mandsford or anyone else seeking deletion: I disagree strongly with the proposition that there's no way to draw a line between notable comparisons between major governments and non-notable comparisons between minor governments. We already make that distinction regularly for articles on diplomatic relations between various pairs of sovereign nations. If it was so problematic to determine which were notable and which weren't, we wouldn't keep Australia–Canada relations and delete Iraq-Malta relations (and yes, the latter article did exist before it was successfully AfD'd with my support. For the record, I wouldn't support an article comparing the Iraqi and Maltese governments! A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge somewhere Needs a trimming perhaps. But seems worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything that isn't a synthesis of information to Australia–Canada relations. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Merge per Lankiveil. Incidentally there are journal articles and at least one book floating around on this exact topic, but I'm not sure that such would be a sound basis for an article. Orderinchaos 16:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article as written is rather weak. However, the use of comparision in poltical science, history, and other academic disciplines is a standard method. Perhaps what we need instead is an aticle about the academic comparision of countries, rather that an actual comparison. Would the deletists in this debate settle for that? --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 22:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have one. ╟─Treasury Tag►without portfolio─╢ 05:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a political consultancy, nor is it a game of Top Trumps. This either simply duplicates information more clearly available in each person's article; or it tends towards a conclusion, in which case it doesn't maintain a neutral point of view. ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 13:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, albeit in a shorter form. The lengthy biographical data is unnecessary, although the stances of different candidates (which includes the third party candidates) is of historical interest. Obviously, this has not been maintained, and would require a rewrite from present tense to past tense if it were to be rescued. However, comparisons of this nature are just as appropriate for 1908 as for 2008, and just as appropriate for the multiparty campaigns in other nations. Mandsford (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in possibly a shortened form. Subject matter is encyclopedic, and as long as everything is sourced and no synthesis is used to extract the information, then there's no problem with original research. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Reading through the article is hard; it's severely, scathingly true. Considering the entire news media covered these people's political opinions before the election, it is not a simply a "political consultancy" but an accurate summary and reflection of the media's attention. I don't see how it tends to a conclusion, the WP:NPOV conformation is strict and harsh. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am honestly somewhat shocked to see an article of this quality on an encyclopedic topic nominated for deletion. I understand that a paper encyclopedia would probably not refactor information in this way, but to me this is a prime example of how the digital medium creates scope for high quality articles that would not exist otherwise. It is incomprehensible to me that deleting a carefully sourced article such as this could be regarded as improving the encyclopedia. Ben Kidwell (talk) 19:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A dutifully researched, well-written, complete (almost to a fault) article. I think all the biographical information is unnecessary as it can all be found at the articles for the respective candidates; that said, I agree with the other users saying that this an example of a quality that belongs in Wikipedia, if not a printed encyclopedia. I think articles such as this comparing the stances of candidates in other U.S. presidential elections would not be objectionable, either. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete g4, repost. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfingers (song)

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreleased song from an upcoming album. Does not appear to be notable in any way. Pontificalibus (talk) 13:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Recreation. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No context whatsoever; may be recreated in a more appropriate fashion and discussed again. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of headphone manufacturers

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

far from complete list which provides nothing more than a category would. RadioFan (talk) 11:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I originally removed the PROD. Even if now the list appears to be possibly redundant, it is not bounded to be so. A list of manufacturers can include former manufacturers and can possibly add details. The fact it is not doing now is not a ground for deletion: AfD is not cleanup. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 11:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Its still not clear how this list might grow beyond what is already provided (more completely) by the Headphones manufacturers category. It lacks any introductory paragraph indicating why such a list is notable. Notable former manufacturers can be included in the Headphones manufacturers category as well.--RadioFan (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could provide details on what they manufacture; it could include brief historical details on when a company started (and maybe ended) producing them, etc. I am not an expert on the subject and as such I am no the right person for the job, but it is obvious that there is potential to improve -and if we want to improve it, we need the list to stay. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 14:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as for similar lists for any significant product. The implied limitation, as usual, is notable headphone manufacturers. As a general rule , unless there is some special reason otherwise, if there is a category, it will make sense there should be a list. Time we codified it. People use different navigational devices & the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information for people to find and use. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the current list consists of 7 names. This is a borderline A3 speedy deletion case. Are there enough notable manufacturers of headphones to make a list article worth maintaining?--RadioFan (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per lack of context. Right the entries there are more suitable at a category. --JForget 00:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete just because the manufacturer is notable doesn't mean that the manufacturer is notably associated with headphones. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt Roller Hockey Rink

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

Doesn't seem to meet our notability guideline. The rink has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I only found a few trivial mentions. The leftorium 10:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The parks and rec section of the San Jose, CA article might eventually be a breakout of its own. Mandsford (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, due to lack of references. If some reliable verifiable third party references can be found, I would change my statement. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't delete our roller hockey rink. We just love hockey (and our rink) and like seeing it up here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.8.46 (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Give me a reason to change my mind. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SNOW--no other close is imaginable DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lying - The Root Of All Evils

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

WP:OR, WP:SOAP. The truth is, there is no CSD for this one… Skarebo (talk) 09:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Original research, unencyclopedic and unreferenced. Contested prod. WWGB (talk) 09:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete personal essay, OR, no refs. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - blatant WP:OR and WP:SOAP. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I broadly agree, but zero encyclopaedic content. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yup, pretty clear WP:SOAP. We've already got an article on lying that's actually written in an encyclopedic fashion. --JamesAM (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "A Small Story For Children On This Topic" This is so unencyclopedic. No sources provided. Looks like an essay by a student. Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 15:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dang! I'll spend the rest of my life wondering how the Vijay and Vikram story turned out! Maybe it can be adapted to a Goofus and Gallant lesson in the future. Mandsford (talk) 15:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you really want to know, the guy in the river asks the woodcutter if it was a gold axe he lost, and he says no, same for a silver axe, and when he says yes for he own axe, he gets the gold and silver one as well as a reward for being honest. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's kind of a different ending than one would expect in the West, particularly considering the American guy-with-an-axe-tells-the-truth fable, George Washington and the cherry tree. Mandsford (talk) 18:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:OR. Joe Chill (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not like we need any more opinions piled on this, but this is hopelessly unencyclopedic. Ben Kidwell (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is very cool. But the author would do better to write children's books, for which he might even get paid, than encyclopedia articles. Northwestgnome (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? You mean we're never going to get paid? Mandsford (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - Are there any plausible reasons for this to be kept at all? Are there?! Yes! No there aren't, you idiot! Shut up! Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 17:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP. Deb (talk) 11:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Delete arguments are stronger. Article has been around since Jan 2004, been through two other deletion discussions. This specific topic still has no references, nor any coverage in reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ladder theory

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has survived VFD in 2004 and AFD in 2006. However, it does not appear to me to be notable. It has a non-trivial article from The Tech (newspaper), but its other references, to relationship books, do not indicate pages and are not necessarily non-trivial (I'll admit here I don't have these books to verify for myself). A Google search throws up unreliable sources.

This "theory" has certainly been blogged about and discussed on webforums, but has not, as far as I can tell:

"been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"
"won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization"
been "distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators"

AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, a web discussion board devoted to the “Ladder Theory”, has very significant traffic and dozens of posts every day. Samboy (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was not correctly placed on the WP:AFD page; I have fixed this. The nomination was originally done yesterday (October 10) but wasn’t placed here until today. Samboy (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of significant third party coverage in WP:RS. Web discussion boards don't count, and The Tech (newspaper) is a campus newspaper, which IMHO doesn't count as a RS either. (If reliable 3rd party sources are produced I'll change my mind). Peter Ballard (talk) 10:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong ~~Keep~~ Neutral - 35 Google News hits, 569 google book hits, and, most importantly, 208 google scholar hits --UltraMagnus^speak 17:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Large numbers of those are completely irrelevant, including apparently all of the scholar results and almost all of the book results, with this possible exception. However, some e.g. this and this (two more university newsletters), and this do actually deal with this article's subject. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 17:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree with AlmostReadytoFly. Almost all of those hits are about the physics or economics concept, not the article in question. Article keep/delete is not about counting google hits. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment good point--UltraMagnus^speak 09:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AlmostReadytoFly: Although the notability of this topic is certainly debatable, it certainly should not have to conform to the requirements at WP:WEB, as you contend in your nomination. "Ladder theory" is not a website. WP:WEB applies to websites. Ergo, that argument is irrelevant. The WP:RS argument is a bit trickier, but Google indicates that several third-party publications have covered the topic. (It should be noted, however, that many or most of the 569 Google Books hits cited by UltraMagnus are about the ladder theories of education, economics, agriculture, etc.) In any case, I don't have a problem with keeping an article about marginally notable pop psychobabble so long as the article prominently represents (this one does) that its subject is "pseudoscientific," "unsubstantiated," and "has never appeared in a referenced journal or scientific forum," and that "its proponents cite no studies or data sets to support their conclusions." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not convinced this is a valid and specific use of the term. The hypothesis about the continuing conventional sexist differences is rather standard, and has been expressed in a variety of ways other than this metaphor. Looking at the GNews archive accounts, I see exactly that: the 1st, 2nd, & 3rd hits are about the use of the term in other contexts entirely. The first use of it in this sense is a student newspaper which takes a rather skeptical view of it, and the other uses appear of a similar order GNews in its attempt to include everything in the covered newspapers is rapidly using its reliability as a guide to reliable sources for Wikipedia purposes/ At the least, the article needs to be retitled to clarify the extremely limited scope —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
Delete This article, in the opening paragraph, lists all the reasons it should be deleted: "[T]he theory has never appeared in a referenced journal or scientific forum and its proponents cite no studies or data sets to support their conclusions." Hires an editor (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in its present form at least per Hires an editor. Looking at the earlier deletion discussion it appears to have survived on the grounds that it is an interesting internet meme rather than a credible theory (in the sense of being verifiable as opposed to corresponding to some peoples' actual experiences). If this was a much shorter article, without all the unverified details and focussing on its (apparently) growing appeal in internet/student circles rather the trying to sell the theory itself, it would be a lot more acceptable in my view. Ben Mac Dui 08:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No argument for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bigfoot trap

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

Fails WP:Notability. Only mentioned in one local news story. Other sites are a government website which doesn't seem to mention it and a private website. Northwestgnome (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - going with the quick Google News link above, I see seven stories, and not all are local. But do note, that there is nothing in the notability guidelines about local sources, so whether or not a source is local is a bit moot. We go with reliable sources, which may include local news outlets, but that's a different argument than not notable because its local. Further, this thing got started in 1974 according to the article, so I'm guessing there might be some news stories covering it available on microfiche, or via databases un-searchable by Google (for instance The Oregonian's paid archives that go back to 1987 are not available via Google News). But do tell what searches you did prior to nominating this for deletion? Aboutmovies (talk) 06:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as it appears the nominator didn't do their good faith search, and others have discovered a plethora of sources, it is clear this is notable. And, just like there is nothing about sources being discounted for being "local", there is nothing in the notability guidelines about things not being notable because they are "local". The proposal for something similar has yet to gain traction, and the current proposal only calls for it meeting WP:NOTE anyway, which this topic does. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mentioned recently in three stories as a filming location: [13],[14],[15], four Mail Tribune stories over the years (2006-2009): [16],[17],[18],[19], a 1997 story in the Grants Pass Daily Courier: [20], a 1992 Associated Press story that was picked up nationally: [21], [22], a mention on the government agency Oregon Tourism Commission's Travel Oregon website: [23], and a mention on the U.S. Forest Service Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest site: [24]. Although several of the mentions are little more than trivial (however "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material"), there are a couple substantial writeups (all these are reliable sources), and articles about the site (at least what can be found immediately on the Internet) span over 15 years. A quick survey of Google Books shows writeups and mentions in books by Robert Michael Pyle, notable Oregon writer William L. Sullivan, and in several Forest Service Publications: [25].Katr67 (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on citations cited above, which can be added to the article. Good work, particularly Katr67 for her search. Mandsford (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for adding more sources. I still think the Bigfoot trap is only a local curiosity, covered ~~only~~ with one exception only by local media and tourist guides, not something of lasting importance. Even if it had actually caught a Bigfoot it would probably only be mentioned in the article about that and would still not have its own article.Northwestgnome (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cleaned up the external links (previously listed as references) and made most into inline citations. Two were low value and are commented out for the moment; another is now merely an external link. I don't have a strong opinion of whether the article should remain or be deleted. But if deleted, the information should be merged to one of the Bigfoot articles, perhaps Evidence regarding Bigfoot or Formal studies of Bigfoot. —EncMstr (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is supported by the sources recently added. Plazak (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being of merely "local interest" is not sufficient grounds for deletion (and I'm also not entirely convinced it's true in this case). The article appears to pass WP:V handily, and is not in violation of any content policies or guidelines. -Pete (talk) 06:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More sources -Pete (talk):
- Associated Press (December 7, 1992). "Bigfoot Trap Still Draws Lots of Questions". The San Francisco Chronicle.
- Associated Press (November 16, 1992). "No bigfoot yet, but trap's ready". The Seattle Times.
- "After 18 years, trap for bigfoot still empty". Eugene Register Guard. November 16, 1992.
Keep It seems to have several references at present. There are plenty of quirky little articles on wikipedia about items of "local" interest - I don't see any reason to delete this. Simon Burchell (talk) 11:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per easily passing WP:NOTABILITY. Many of the sources were found in search links provided by the nom above.--Oakshade (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was deleted (CSD G10) by Future Perfect at Sunrise. NAC. Cliff smith ^talk 10:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Spenser

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

Subject of article has no real notability; a google search turned up no results. LAA Fan^sign _review 02:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:OR. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Seriously? This is a vanity page. Uber-non-notable. WP:IAR if we have to. JBsupreme (talk) 07:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Absolutely inadmissible, libellous and above all unreferenced claims in the last paragraph. No sources. This is WP:BLP, it should be deleted immediatelly. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WindowBlinds

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

Yes, this has a lot of Google hits, the links provided are either from the producer or self-published; I could find nothing approaching independent, in-depth coverage of the topic. Biruitorul ^Talk 01:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, withdrawn, and thanks to those who presented sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because neither can I. Attention all future !voters, if you LIKE IT (WP:ILIKEIT) I hope you can also SOURCE IT. JBsupreme (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep on this one, I have thoroughly reviewed the book citations below and in this ONE instance I believe notability can be demonstrated. Wow, it really is possible!! JBsupreme (talk) 19:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep You guys need to look harder: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]. It's referenced in hundreds of hits on gBooks. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've never heard of it, but the Tucows link[38] counts as independent coverage. In that link it wins an award, and it's in very good company, with some of the other winners being very notable software programs such as WinRAR, Google Earth, Acrobat Reader, Microsoft Media Player etc. I checked the first book link, and that's independent too, being an O'Reilly Media book. So yeah, looks notable. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- To be fair, the WinRAR article is in dire need of proper sources. The rest speak for themselves. JBsupreme (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough with the additional links provided by the above 2 contributors RT | Talk 14:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Odie5533 and Peter Ballard. Notability has been sufficiently demonstrated, though I can't claim to have heard of WindowBlinds previously. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neuroquantology

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

This is a personal web page masquerading as a journal. No independent coverage to establish notability. I'm certain I've seen this article before, but can't find a previous AfD. Looie496 (talk) 01:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As noted on their website, Web of Science does in fact index their journal. The journal is cited by Physical Review E [39], Physical Review D [40]; Int J Neurosci in "Unertan Syndrome: A New Variant of Unertan Syndrome: Running on All Fours in Two Upright-Walking Children", and "Effect of Prenatal Exposure to Mobile Phone on Pyramidal Cell Numbers in the Mouse Hippocampus: A Stereological Study"; Int. J. Theor. Phys. in "[41]"; Q. J. Exp. Psychol. [42]; Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience; and about a dozen or more other journals. I'm not positive if this is enough coverage for an academic journal, but it seems sufficient to me. If anyone wants a copy of one of the above-mentioned articles (or wants me to find some more citations) let me know. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, how should this source be interpreted? Abductive (reasoning) 02:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't trust New Scientist on anything. If you read the bottom of the article, it says "We contacted Brian Josephson, a Nobel laureate physicist who is on the editorial board of Neuroquantology. 'This looks distinctly flaky to me,' Josephson commented." They have a Nobel laureate on their editorial board. I think that counts for something. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your reply, and the source, could be read any number of different ways. Abductive (reasoning) 03:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? --Odie5533 (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is mentioned in a reliable source, New Scientist, which you call untrustworthy, even though in this article it is calling Neuroquantology untrustworthy. A Nobel laureate is on their editorial board, calling an article in his own journal "flaky". You said that should count for something, but what? Didn't you just say we couldn't trust New Scientist, so maybe they mis-indentified or mis-quoted him? Also, notability is not inherited, but maybe in this case it should be? Abductive (reasoning) 07:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be correctly identified and as far as I can tell is on the editorial team. The article seemed to poke more at the research itself, and publishing the editorial team member's comment noting the research as perhaps "flaky" reinforces the focus of their critique. I think NeuroQuantology is notable, though perhaps not reliable. I see the same for New Scientist, but even though it is not reliable (in my opinion), certain basic things can be relied up such as interviews, per WP:RS. --Odie5533 (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You hit upon the funny that I was trying to make; anything that is the topic of an article in a reliable source is notable, whether they are calling it reliable or esurient or vociferous or leptokurtic or any adjective. But in this case, the nominator is saying that because it is an unreliable journal, it should be deleted, even though by that standard we shouldn't have an article on the Tacoma Narrows Bridge since it was unreliable. Even funnier, the New Scientist article is not about Neuroquantology, it is about the purported mechanism of poltergeist activity reported in Neuroquantology, and so must be given little weight towards establishing notability for Neuroquantology. Abductive (reasoning) 08:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep since ISI indexes it, and so does Scopus, (as confirmed not just by their website, but by Ulrich's) they're notable. Those two are both very selective indexing services. Both of them cover a very few journals which might be considered in the borderline fringe category. and it seems like this might be one of them. Something is not the less notable because it's fringy. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wish the nominator to realize that getting cited by ISI and Scopus is an achievement for a journal (there are serious reviews behind those processes), which automatically makes it notable. Materialscientist (talk) 10:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After 3 keep votes, still, no source has been provided that can be used to remedy the nominator's actual concern: that the current article reads like the journal's home page. Handwaiving about "achievement" and "selectivity" is not really on point. If this journal is well-respected, then, sure, the articles that it publishes can be used as reliable sources in constructing npov Wikipedia articles about neuroscience or quantum physics. But to construct an npov article about this journal, we need sources that are about this journal, as Abductive suggests. And being indexed in ISI and Scopus doesn't cut it, because Wikipedia is not a directory. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment IP makes a very good point that I overlooked. I am not sure the nominator was really hitting at it, but it is a point that should be made. Is there enough material to construct an article on the journal NeuroQuantology? I think the answer to that is no, there isn't enough secondary information on the journal itself. I am not really sure how to address this problem. If we accept that the journal is notable, we also need to know that there is enough information out there to create an article about it. Having other journals cite work published in NeuroQuantology is not really enough; we need secondary reliable sources about the journal itself. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be a very short article, then - NeuroQuantology describes itself as a journal ... is listed by ISI and Scopus. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Even WP:FRINGE allows for keeping an article based on notability if it is verifiable and well-sourced. Bearian (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The nominator's concerns can be resolved through the ordinary editing process. Bearian (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Without any independent sources? 160.39.213.97 (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG and Materialscientist. We need to be very very careful given the paucity of independent sources, but the listings are sufficient to establish notability. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#G11 by Fastily. Non-admin closure. JohnCD (talk) 11:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kotick Marketing Group

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

Delete This article about a non-publicly traded company reads more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia article.JayZRulz (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: looks like an ad. Alexius08 (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't seem encyclopedic, more like an advert - non notable RT | Talk 15:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enichkin

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

Article is frivolous, no notable sources. Page appears to be used as promotional material by main editor. Mendori (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sirs, my name is Alexander, I am a biographer of Sergey Nazarenko aka Enichkin, who follows up his music career from origin till now on. Wikipedia's page of the same name, recently founded with Enichkin's permission, serves the purpose to assemble biography facts, answers to common questions about the artist and discography confirmed with sources — milestones of the creative already 5 years path, valuable pieces of information that shapes wholehearted, complete story.

Working on this article I followed Wikipedia's guidelines and templates as closely as possible, being inspired with pages of Sting, Burial and Shpongle, that's why your epithets "frivolous, no notable sources" amaze me.

Enichkin is relatively young, yet prolific, touring and generally recognized through psytrance scene (which is not a mainstream, not highly covered with mass media) including a living legend Goa Gil (check his charts via referring link). In short, psytrance scene exists between studio releases and open-airs without a great number of "notable sources". Just visit other psytrance musicians pages (via Category link) and get an evidence of that. Even so, people search for it indeed.

I do focus on Enichkin's music career and related things that answer and inspire, intentionally omitting private life, pets, some hobbies without connection with his music career (all this really frivolous stuff usually accepted here without a murmur about pop artists). Please, be open-minded, be more specific about what you want, and I'll do my best to satisfy you.

Warm regards from Russia. --AlexanderKraeved (talk) 14:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles shouldn't be used to draw attention to something. Unless there are independent published sources that cover this artist, Wikipedia should not have an article about him. Looie496 (talk) 01:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks independant, reliable sources and is clearly being used for self-promotion. Edward321 (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The main problem here is the notability. In my opinion, Sergey Nazarenko aka Enichkin doesn't meet our criteria for musicians and ensembles. I can't find anything substantial in reliable third-party sources. --Vejvančický (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 19:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sirs, could you find a significant coverage for Kindzadza, C-P-C, Raja Ram? I suppose you could not, because it's not a mainstream. What you say here sounds as "write about popular things confirmed with Rolling stones, Wired and Google Top-10, everything else is immaterial, especially about living persons — oh, it's self-promo". An artist exists, his art exists, people deserve to know about that independently via Wikipedia. Promo notes such as tour dates, flyers, any kind of ads are omitted.

Please, tell me names of notable and reliable third-party sources on dark psytrance scene that would satisfy you? I am aware of one indeed, it is Goa Gil with his chart, who mentions Enichkin several times.

What aspect of criteria for musicians the article does not follow? I ask you once again, please, be more specific, a dry voting for deletion is not constructive. For example, Enichkin's discography confirmed with labels' sites includes "two or more albums", his last album is released on Avatar records that founded in 1997 and is a subsidiary of NMC Music / Sony Israel (Sony Asia Music).

Warm regards from Russia. --AlexanderKraeved (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. AlexanderKraeved,

this is an encyclopedia, and the fact, that "An artist exists, his art exists" is not sufficient for entry in this encyclopedia. The link which you provide is a chart of Enichkin's collaborator Goa Gill, and it contains only his name. I don't consider it a substantial source. Enichkin's profile at Avatar Rec. is not an independent source, it was written by people promoting his albums. The official website, MySpace, Last.fm and the rest of the references cited in the article is insufficient, the links are not independent. In that case, we could turn Wikipedia into another MySpace. I've found several ([43][44][45][46][47]) reviews of his music, however, the information is repetitive. We need more independent sources confirming his significant contribution to the dark psytrance genre. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Kindzadza is a clear candidate for deletion, I'm not sure with C-P-C, and Raja Ram meets the criteria for musicians ([48], [49]). --Vejvančický (talk) 10:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Riley Evans

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Articles like this, while scholarly and informative, don't meet notability standards. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Man... that picture is quite provocative... (closes eyes and shakes head). Picture should be removed as young innocent little kids can wander on Wikipedia and see this picture... Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 21:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on sight (IF you catch my drift). JBsupreme (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
EEEEWWWWW.... DESTROY WITH FIRE: Fails WP:N, needs better sources. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How could you guys want to delete such an enthralling, poignant, and academically useful article on this young star? On another note, if we delete the article, will the pic still be on the Commons? I'm only asking because a friend of mine wanted to know, I don't really care myself. --Odie5533 (talk) 06:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather off-topic, but personally, this is not my type. I'd prefer something like Sora Aoi myself. But nonetheless, this doesn't mean that this article doesn't fail WP:N and just singes on WP:RS. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 06:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Dahl

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

No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 07:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yes, no significant coverage can be seen in the photo (pardon the gag, couldn't resist). None in the media either. Don't delete the photo, please.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But little innocent kids can wander on Wikipedia and see this picture and cause them to have nightmares... ;) Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 21:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Heh. Some of the pictures I've seen on Wikipedia are a lot worse than this, really XXX rated. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I do agree that this person has more cloth on than her Riley Evans... Jolenine (Talk - My Contribs) 21:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge these into one section or article on the year in Penthouse petdom. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. --CooperDB (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. consensus for deletion Lazulilasher (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SportBusiness

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

Delete. Promotional material that is unsourced outside its own blurb. Should be speedied really. --Jack | ^{talk page} 04:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for reasons already explained by the nominator. JBsupreme (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion as blatant advertising solely relying on primary sources. Alexius08 (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maralee Caruso

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. Does not satisfy WP:ENTERTAINER nor WP:BIO either as I see no awards/nominations/large fan base. [50][51][52][53] ƒ(Δ)² 17:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After some reflection, I believe that TV journalists who have appeared prominently on several different programs are notable under criterion 1 of WP:ENTERTAINER, since they are "television personalities" (and perhaps "opinion makers") who have "had significant roles in multiple notable ... television shows." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin, and other participants in the AfD Per discussion here, consensus is that WP:CREATIVE applies here, and not WP:ENTERTAINER as cited above. ƒ(Δ)² 16:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Holding a brief discussion on a noticeboard, without having the courtesy to inform anyone who has expressed opinions contrary to yours, does not achieve "consensus' to ignore the text of a guideline. This is the sort of content dispute that ought to be worked out through reasoned discussion in context (that's what the AFD process is for, although it's often hard to tell); and trying to short-circuit it through low profile discussions elsewhere isn't a great display of good faith. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is clear consensus actually. 6 editors agree ENTERTAINER does not apply there. You're the only one who thinks it does. ƒ(Δ)² 17:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a brief, low-profile discussion started and "closed" by you without even having the courtesy to notify me of the potential debate. It ignores the well-establish practice/consensus that more than one notability guideline (eg, WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR) may apply to an article. And it never addresses what the guideline actually says, particularly with regard to "television personalities" and "opinion makers." Finally, that 6-1 "consensus" counts each of your posts as a separate !vote, which is pretty pathetic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's still open, if you wish to comment there. I haven't closed it. I wanted a third opinion; I already know yours. Additionally (I've mentioned this before) I don't think multiple policies apply here at all so well-established practice or not, it doesn't apply here. At all. And finally, I'm not counting each of my own posts as a separate !vote, I'm counting the comments left by other editors in that discussion. Please get your facts straight. Cheers, ƒ(Δ)² 10:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unreferenced, notability questionable. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Exactly what notability criteria does this article meet? Fails WP:RS. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, with only 88 Google hits, we can't support a BLP. Abductive (reasoning) 07:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smackdown vs Raw 2010 feat. ECW

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

This is just basically a copy-paste of the article WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2010. Very little added information and its highly unlikely that this is a separate game. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything not duplicated and Delete the rest. Doc Quintana (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is simply a duplication with the roster listed in full which is unneccesary. AirRaidPatrol 84 (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BibCiter

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Joe,

I've added more info on BibCiter, which you tagged for deletion. I agree it's not a very famous tool, but it does add to help the end user to chose, specially when being added to the Comparison of reference management software.

I've had this discussions about deletion before, in the English Wikipedia as in other languages, and my argument always is that it is more difficult to create an article than to add information to it little by little. In other words, I think it's worth keeping presumably trivial articles than to delete them, as they act as a seed that's to grow.

A good example of this can be found with the Doc Searls article, which I created, was tagged for deletion, and now it's a good article.

Ictlogist (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can always work on the article in your userspace. It can even be moved there if it is deleted. It needs citations to substantial coverage in independent reliable sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only coverage of this software I can find outside its own web pages is a few warnings about security vulnerabilities. Looie496 (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like a useful tool, but has not received significant coverage. Also, most of the gHits are for a vulnerability. See [54] --Odie5533 (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: seems like a well written article but still un-notable. South Bay (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neguinho da Beija-Flor

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

Unreferenced, unlikely to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 18:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neguinho da Beija-Flor appears to be a notable person in South America, Google Search offers 94800 hits. I can't read Portuguese, but I think that translation and review of [55], [56], [57], [58] could be helpful. The sources Womad.org, this book, Afropop Worldwide, Jungle Drums are sufficient for inclusion, in my opinion. --Vejvančický (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google News Search, the articles are in Portuguese language.--Vejvančický (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have so much shit you have in the wiki-en, that is not worth--Biantez (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no need to understand Portuguese to see that the subject is notable - the Google Books search linked above finds plenty of coverage in English, as well as hundreds of sources in Portuguese. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The subject has been the lead singer of one of the largest Samba associations in Rio for more than 30 years. Evens a cursory examination of the Ghits will show he is notable.--SonicRay (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Faith Mission of Elkhart

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

Local organization with no evidence of notability from multiple reliable sources. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be patient with me. I'm improving the article as I am learning to. To my understanding, I've added 3 independent news sources that I believe would make the article significant, for it has significant in the three articles. What else is needed to be considered signficant? (Jeudym (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC));[reply]

To be fair, each of the news links provide only a cursory mention of the charity. Notwithstanding, local sources may not be the best indicator of notability, per WP:LOCAL and WP:TOWN. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is NOT and advertisment, as this article currently presents its subject in a manner similiar to advertising. The subject appears to also be non-notable. —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 14:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kris Abel

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

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:BIO, hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions and I see no awards/nominations/large fan base. ƒ(Δ)² 17:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Subject has not received significant coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Why do we have all these CTV personality pages? Do we really need a page for every single CTV individual? Refer to the WP:NOT section on indiscriminate information. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that the sources do not cover the subject significantly enough to pass the general notability guideline. NW (Talk) 20:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote: Following this deletion, I have moved Josh Leo (musician) to Josh Leo since the qualifier is no longer needed. The musician is notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Leo

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

Several sources, but all are trivial. Fails WP:N for lack of significant coverage; most are just one-sentence blurbs. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He did get in a few newspapers, but seems to be just news as usual. WP:BLP1E. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possible merge to a an article on video bloggers. He's been covered in numerous reliable sources. Deleting doesn't improve the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Refs are mentions, not significant coverage, and nowhere enough to keep such detail or edits and links to nn websits. Flowanda | Talk 08:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. References seem just a little less than what the WP:GNG require. --CooperDB (talk) 20:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Corner

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

"If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." - wp:v -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-10-04t13:19z 13:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below." S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the rest of the wp:n guideline, which states "General notability guideline 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."? Chris Corner has zero footnoted references, and of the 5 external links 4 are not "independent of the subject" and the 5th is 404. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-10-04t21:01z

Keep - Ghits seem to show a fair number of interviews and articles about the subject. Just for the record: The GNG 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., but it doesn't say the converse. From p-->q , you can't deduce ¬p-->¬q See logical implication. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of reliable and substantial third-party sources even in the Czech language. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brandise Danesewich

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

Actress/model that fails our notability guideline. She has not received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject (I could not find any, though I may be looking in the wrong places). The leftorium 16:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely any hits on Google. Canadian, so English Google should have found something if she was notable. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unsourced. IMDB is not a source. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: needs more reliable sources. South Bay (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC). RMHED 19:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Flagg

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

Delete - I have searched and have been unable to find any significant reliable source coverage of Edith Flagg other than sites related to her grandson Josh Flagg who is currently publicizing a book written about her. I've pruned the article, which had uncited BLP claims, none of which I could find a reliable source discussing. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a lot of newspaper coverage at this Google News archive search with quotes like:
- "Edith Flagg should be the fashion heroine of the year to working women everywhere. ..."
- "EDITH FLAGG designs the fash ions for going away in. Styled of CRIMPLENE an all polyes, ter from England From our cur . rent collection"
- "Edith Flagg specializes in dresses and costumes for the often forgotten -woman over 30 and sizes up to 20. "

So there's enough coverage from reliable sources to indicate that she was a notable fashion designer who made use of polyester fabrics, even if you don't regard the book written by her grandson as a reliable source. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The bulk of those google archive hits are display ads, probably purchased by her or her company. I can find no mention of any of the notability claims such as her being the first to import the fabric to the States, or her being a philanthropist, or her being part of the Dutch Resistance movement, etc. The only coverage establishes that she used polyester as a designer - not much else. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep would you like me to send you newspaper articles from the LA Times? If you give me your email address i can send everything to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdf3524 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Please visit the hundreds of articles in the google archives. These are ticles are available through the LA Times. I have hundreds of articles in front of me showing this woman was a major philanthropist, pictures of her with Israeli prime minister, Carol Burnet, Bob Mackey recieving awards with her name on and Carols on them. I can scan everything, otherwise the editors will have to go into google archives and buy the articles which are available. Please tell me what i should do? (Jdf3524 (talk) 04:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

~~Keep~~ Please look at these display ads and notice the official seal by ICI who manufactured Crimplene. Edith AFlagg was the only company with the authority to use this symbol. Look up Crimplene in 1965, the very first time it is EVER written amount is in referance to Edith Flagg on October 14, 1965 (Jdf3524 (talk) 05:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment: please note that repeatedly stating you wish to keep the article is unnecessary each time you comment. AfD is not a vote, but non-voting once is sufficient. Thank you. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.jewishla.com/2009/09/authors-corner-josh-platt/ jewish federation one of americas greqat institutions just recognized Edith Flagg as bringing polyester to the US in this article (Jdf3524 (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I found articles "Edith Flagg: Celebrating 20 years of Success" California Apparel News page 9 Friday June 11 1976

Beverly Hills Courier january 9, 1976-- “Flagg, nationally prominent apparel manufacturer, active in the Dutch Underground

Women’s Wear Daily sec 2 wed jan 6 1971 Edith Flagg(Jdf3524 (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs cleanup, but appears to be notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep unless the nominator can demonstrate that none of the reliable offline sources cited contain significant coverage of the subject. ^Bongo_matic 06:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a lot of sources available online [59]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but when there are numerous sources cited already, the onus is on the nominator, at very minimum, explain why those sources do not establish notability. The nominator has not mentioned anything at all about the sources already provided. ^Bongo_matic 06:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smokin' Guns

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Smokin' Guns

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

This article presents two sources: A listing at exp.de, the coverage of which is not significant, and a mod-of-the-month award at ModDB, a site which is not currently considered a reliable source (WP:VG/RS) Web search hits appear to be largely forum chatter and directory entries. Marasmusine (talk) 11:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 11:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: For a mod, it seems to have generated enough coverage to warrant an article: [60] [61] [62] [63]. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That GameDaily article is usable. Marasmusine (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Odie. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Megator

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

Of the 5 external links, only mentioned at [64] - not enough sources to indicate encyclopedic notability. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-10-04t10:46z 10:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the other MOTU characters have sections & I would like this one to stay to inform people of this little known character! If any one would like to add or help clean it up please do so! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hordak1 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

needs to be deleted as it doesn't fit wikipedia's standards for notability WP:GNG

Dwanyewest (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mysterious Universe

AfDs for this article:

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

After several weeks, no references in reliable sources have appeared to satisfy claims of notability as per WP:N. The previous AfD found this article lacked notability in its present form and I do not see what has changed. All attempts I have made to find suitable references have failed, therefore I suggest it be deleted. DestroHolmes (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the article was deleted in the last AfD, are there any hints of improvement in the remade version of the article? S-J-S-F-M-W (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was previously deleted for notability concerns, specifically lack of reliable coverage in secondary sources. As stated in my original nomination, I do not see anything that has changed - there is a paucity of references from reliable sources and a lack of multiple items of media coverage to satisfy WP:N. Also, those commenting may want to note that my recent general clean-up was reverted in its entirety by User:Absolutemetazero (diffs here) and that the present version has WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and citation problems in my opinion. --DestroHolmes (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

THESE ARE THE REFERENCES FROM RELIABLE SOURCES reliable sources which satisfy claims of notability as per WP:N. The previous AfD

NEWS OUTLETS SOURCES : PRWEB[65]

NEWS.COM.AU [66]

They clearly stand for reliable sources and multiple items of media coverage to satisfy WP:N. Regarding PRWEB: News outlet that works with distribution partners such as Yahoo! News, Google News. Regarding NEWS.COM.AU: A widely known Australian news outlet.

DestroHolmes failure to see the changes may not be the most reliable point of view given to the fact that his edits and alleged clean up selectively erased the reliable sources. Please note that his edits worked more as surreptitious academic protectionism than acceptable encyclopedic criteria. What kind of concensus can we have if only DestroHolmes makes all the decisions?

Regarding recent edits by User:Absolutemetazero the present version does NOT have issues with WP:OR, WP:NPOV, nor citation problems and rather it was reverted (diffs here) because it had been consistently suppressed by DestroHolmes. Wikipedia is about collaboration and not arbitrary deletion by one person such as DestroHolmes who seems to be defending Benjamin Grundy's interests instead of respecting encyclopedic guidelines.

I want to publicly denounce DestroHolmes and his attempts to suppress this page and its complaints of online fraud despite the addition of reliable sources. Furthermore, I want to publicly question DestroHolmes's real identity as a a possible acquintance of Benjamin Grundy or as Benjamin Grundy himself.

The edit war with Tonkacres/Zhenboy/Destroholmes was deliberately started when Benjamin Grundy and Aaron were sent private messages on facebook notifying them about the changes on Wikipedia and in less than an hour (Australian time) the edit war had started.

DestroHolmes then proceeded to block the accounts and then acted as expected: started protecting Benjamin Grundy.

The page was then subsequently changed by DestroHolmesin a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the evidence of possible online fraud in the section "Breach of contract" DestroHolmes was clearly manipulated to show how biased his views were.

The main purpose of the edit war was to draw DestroHolmes into making arbitrary decisions and cast light into his surreptitious academic protectionism and abuse of Wikipedia's Policies and guidelines by blocking users and making personal decisions to delete a page he has a conflict of interest with. Unfortunately for DestroHolmes his editing history clearly show his protectionism towards a podcaster involved with online fraud. Should wikipedia rely on DestroHolmes as a supporter of online fraud?

Please feel free to compare his edits since now it is too late for him to change them or cover his tracks.

This page should not be deleted because it has consistent relevance to the Wikiproject Podcasting as well as present and future Podcasters interested in avoiding the same pitfalls Benjamin Grundy went through. Benjamin Grundy did not respect acceptable business practices and all his listeners were lost due to accusations of Online fraud and numerous complaints.

Lastly, allow me to ask a logical question: Which one has more value?

A)Mysterious Universe and its possible case of online fraud where victims stated the events. B)An inane internet meme such as "Raptor Jesus"

Both are facing deletion yet only one has relevance to Newmedia and Podcasting.

If an article such as "Raptor Jesus" finds space in Wikipedia where does wikipedia take its cues for credibility? Furthermore, does keeping "Raptor Jesus" as an article make Wikipedia different from Uncyclopedia's "Raptor Jesus" article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.195 (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, Absolutemetazero

Keep I search Google news, but that too common a phrase, so I search "Mysterious Universe" and "podcast" and get only two results. One links to forums, so I ignore it, the other seems like a notable mention, and Google list it as a news site, but on the side of the article is a video of a girl stripping off her clothing. I'm thinking notable news sites do not involve porn ads on them. Anyway, mainstream media coverage normally doesn't cover podcast. The article has references backing up its claims of how popular this is among podcast. Does anyone dispute that? Are those references not considered valid proof of notability? Dream Focus 19:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue as I see it is with notability, not popularity. According to Wikipedia guidlines, to be notable "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". To summarize the article in its present form has references that include:

3 press releases (not independent)
1 ranking in a non-notable podcast directory
1 blog posting from news.com.au
2 reviews from non-notable podcast review sites
1 mention in a non-notable podcast recording
2 reviews from random blogs
1 posting from a non-notable web forum
2 postings from a consumer protection organization

None of these, with the perhaps the exception of blog positing from news.com.au, qualifies as a reliable source for determination of notability. Until Mysterious Universe receives significant, independent coverage in the independent media, the topic fails to meet the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia, at least in my understanding of the guidelines. Please remember that popularity does not equal notability. --DestroHolmes (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails the WP:GNG for lack of third-party coverage. I love the chunk of text above left by an IP self-identified as "Absolutemetazero". However, I see nothing else in that wall of text other than addressing the nominator, and practically other-stuff-exists-ing the now-deleted Raptor Jesus against this podcast. Nothing, except for the first few sentences, argues for the rescue of this article, and the references provided aren't acceptable except for the news.com.au one. WP:GNG calls for more than one, though. talking birds 15:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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