Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 13

< 12 November	14 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bhajans (album)

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

I cannot find sufficient evidence of notability of this album, per wp standards. Others are welcome to try. Tagged for sources for well over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only found MP3 download sites. Fails WP:NSONGS. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Milton's Glen

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

I cannot find sufficient evidence of notability of this album, per wp standards. Others are welcome to try. Tagged for sources for well over a year. Epeefleche (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not proven notable. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) 00:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sofa Stars

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

Can't see how this passes WP:Broadcast. Channel appears to have missed a alleged launch date, does not have an ofcom broadcast license which is needed to broadcast a channel in the UK and as its not launched broadcasts nothing what so ever. Ruth-2013 (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This violates Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When this channel begins airing then we may see it it's notable enough for a Wiki article. --Madison-chan (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - Agree that it fails crystal. If/when the channel starts broadcasting it probably will be notable and there are no problems with the article itself so moving it to user space may be a better than deleting. WP:BROADCAST is an essay, an Ofcom TV broadcast licences is required to broadcast from the UK, not necessarily to it and the launch date in the article and on the company's website is listed as 2011. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 15:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A source in the wikipedia page here http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tech/news/a244863/electric-sofa-to-launch-3-channels-on-sky.html is dated july 15th 2010 and claims they where launching on November 1st. So whatever the website says this proves they have missed an alleged launch date.(Ruth-2013 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. As a TV channel that has yet to air, it might still be notable if it were highly anticipated, but I could find no evidence of such. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per jasmeet until they actually broadcast something, it's all a twinkle in a production companies' eye. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) 00:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Film GB

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

Can't see how this passes WP:Broadcast. Channel appears to have missed a alleged launch date, does not have an ofcom broadcast license which is needed to broadcast a channel in the UK and as its not launched broadcasts nothing what so ever. Ruth-2013 (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This violates Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When this channel begins airing then we may see it it's notable enough for a Wiki article. --Madison-chan (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - Agree that it fails crystal. If/when the channel starts broadcasting it probably will be notable and there are no problems with the article itself so moving it to user space may be a better than deleting. WP:BROADCAST is an essay, an Ofcom TV broadcast licences is required to broadcast from the UK, not necessarily to it and the launch date in the article and on the company's website is listed as 2011. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A source in the wikipedia page here http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tech/news/a244863/electric-sofa-to-launch-3-channels-on-sky.html is dated july 15th 2010 and claims they where launching on November 1st. So whatever the website says this proves they have missed an alleged launch date.(Ruth-2013 (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. As a TV channel that has yet to air, it might still be notable if it were highly anticipated, but I could find no evidence of such. -- Whpq (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per jasmeet --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) 00:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sofa Screen

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

Can't see how this passes WP:Broadcast. Channel appears to have missed a alleged launch date, does not have an ofcom broadcast license which is needed to broadcast a channel in the UK and as its not launched broadcasts nothing what so ever. Ruth-2013 (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This violates Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When this channel begins airing then we may see it it's notable enough for a Wiki article. --Madison-chan (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - Agree that it fails crystal. If/when the channel starts broadcasting it probably will be notable and there are no problems with the article itself so moving it to user space may be a better than deleting. WP:BROADCAST is an essay, an Ofcom TV broadcast licences is required to broadcast from the UK, not necessarily to it and the launch date in the article and on the company's website is listed as 2011. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 15:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A source in the wikipedia page here http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/tech/news/a244863/electric-sofa-to-launch-3-channels-on-sky.html is dated july 15th 2010 and claims they where launching on November 1st. So whatever the website says this proves they have missed an alleged launch date.(Ruth-2013 (talk) 05:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. As a TV channel that has yet to air, it might still be notable if it were highly anticipated, but I could find no evidence of such. -- Whpq (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per jasmeet. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) 00:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yonah Muasau

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

A rugby union player whose highest level of play is currently the American Samoa U19 team. Fails WP:RU/N. AIRcorn (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At present, the subject does not appear to be notable. Re-create the article if that situation changes. Stormbay (talk) 04:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Bob247 (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
userfy for now - at 19 he may well get a crack at notability pretty soon. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Black, Jr.

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

Bio of a young (12 or under) chess player. "One of 14 American masters currently under 12 years old" and covered as one of three players in a NY Times article. I don't think this passes notability guidelines. Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:UPANDCOMING - when and if he wins or is rated # 1 in his age group, then he would become notable. I'm sure he's a great kid. Bearian (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per crystal. not even close to upandcoming --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy deletion.

Ziddi razan

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

Biographical article about a blogger. No reliable sources, so article is unverifiable. No claim to notability. Clearly breaches WP:BIO and WP:BAND. Both CSD:A7 and Prod notices were removed, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Of course. There is also most likely a WP:COI since the article on Ziddi razan was created by Ziddirazan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam). jheiv ^{talk contribs} 03:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G7 Author request. There aren't enough edits to this page to do the whole WP:SPLICE thing. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wildcard certificate

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

This is a copy of a page. —cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 21:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of both articles and renamed the page Wildcard SSL certificate to Wildcard certificate. I explaned my reasoning here: Talk:Wildcard_SSL_certificate. Does this satisfy you? --FlippyFlink (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cut-and-paste page move, which is undesirable because it cuts off attribution history. An admin can clean this up at WP:SPLICE. Next time, see WP:moving a page. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly why I suggested this page be removed so the other page can be moved properly if necessary.—cyberpower (Talk to Me)(Contributions) 06:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for the mess and did not know about the renaming option. Please delete this Wildcard certificate page, so that the Wildcard SSL certificate page can be renamed. --FlippyFlink (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 20:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cwm (window manager)

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

The author has removed the notability tag without adding any new sources to the article. Those present seem to be either closely related to the product itself, or are fan blogs, which are generally not WP:RS. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the author of the article, and I don't believe the subject is not notable. There is currently the only WP:RS (as I consider it) on the page — Undeadly (the third-party news site covering mostly OpenBSD-related news) — is referenced twice. The rest of references are the primary sources. If others disagree with me about the question of notability, I would prefer userfication. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice, that I've actually extended article, so it is now twice as large as it was and contains twice as many references. While the new references are not WP:RS, as they are blogs, their amount is now considerable, and they are not primary sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. Would not object to early closure of this Afd to reach that end. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 23:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if we assume undeadly is a reliable source (I am skeptical of this) WP:GNG requires multiple reliable sources. - MrOllie (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why WP:NSOFT shouldn't apply here? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which criteria in WP:NSOFT do you think this article meets? - MrOllie (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually section 2 option 1 and section 3 options 2, 3. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, section 2 option one says 'The software is discussed in reliable sources as significant in its particular field.'. What are the reliable sources (note the plural) that say it is significant in its field? - MrOllie (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As section 3 suggests, WP:SPS may be considered reliable depending on in-depth coverage. There are several such sources in the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not suggest that at all. In fact, in a footnote, section 3 says 'Notability, not existence, must be established by such citations without using WP:Synthesis. Sourceforge, independent project wiki's, and other self-published sites are excluded from this definition.' You may not use self published sites to establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The notability is established by Undeadly link, the verifiability - by self published sites as per WP:NSOFT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it's immensely counter-productive to treat guidelines as inflexible, unerring laws.

From my perspective, minimal "reliable" coverage (by Wikipedia's definition) is hardly a definitive lack of notability in this niche. It should be plainly obvious that the level of coverage for a *nix window manager is likely to be sparse. Small open source projects don't have multi-million-dollar marketing campaigns behind them, nor are there glossy dead-tree publications on newstands about them. Much of the good information on nearly all open source projects tends to come from the authors, mailing lists and blog posts... Sources which nearly invariably fail WP:SPS.

Forgive me, but I'm going to go on a tangent: Policies such as WP:RS have always seemed extremely defensive to me. I understand that's thanks in large part to people who ceaselessly try to find loopholes to insert their own bias into controversial articles through the use of seriously-questionable sources... but cwm isn't an article about a conspiracy theory, pseudoscientific medical treatment, nor a contentious political issue. As such, I don't think it should be held to the letter of such stringent guidelines.

Take Awesome and dwm, for example. Both were taken to AfD, then to DRV... both were train-wrecks, more or less, particularly dwm's first AfD. Aside from being a massive waste of time for all involved, I see the linked examples as doing an excellent job of underlining how the strict application of certain policies and guidelines works very poorly within this particular niche — alienating potential contributors and deleting verifiable content.

There are thousands of articles like this, covering a huge swathe of open source projects and similarly lacking Wikipedia-reliable sources. Should rtorrent, zsh and many other well-known projects also be judged non-notable and deleted for their lack of professional media coverage? Singlemaltscotch (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand. Your argument is that these kinds of articles don't have reliable sourcing, but we should ignore that? How are we supposed to make the articles verifiable? - MrOllie (talk) 15:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact WP:V states all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question. The definition of reliable, appropriate sources for free software is given in WP:NSOFT. So it's just a question of availability of WP:COMMONSENSE. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is that a strict interpretation of WP:RS is far too strong a measure for a topic like this, being best reserved for truly contentious articles with bad-faith editing going on.

In this case, I believe far more discretion is in order. I only noticed WP:NSOFT after writing much of this, but it seems to echo several of my sentiments. Verifiability comes easily to software, as most claims about a given piece of end-user software can be trivially verified or refuted through use of the program. Having the source freely and readily available merely increases the chances of catching any misinformation.

It may not be a Wikipedia editor's job to do that verification (no original research), but it's all easily done by a third-party. Having seen developers catch serious flak for a few small errors in judgment, I can only imagine the polemic that would be hurled at someone for publishing a deliberately-misleading review. So, the community essentially polices itself.

cwm handily satisfies my personal standard of notability. The various posts linked by the article have quite a number of comments among them, and it's one of the default WMs in OpenBSD, itself notable, which surely counts for something. There's interest in cwm, albeit not a staggering amount, within the community. There's an editor who's happily created and written an article on it, referencing sources that ought to be considered reliable on the topic. It seems like a grievous error to discard all self-published sources out of hand, particularly in a niche that's largely devoid of professional media coverage. Singlemaltscotch (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy None of the sources meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:10, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. [1] FSF is sufficiently reliable source, although the author would do well to include it in the article. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Free software directory exercise any editorial control? I was under the impression that that listed just about everything. - MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The header spells This entry published by the Free Software Foundation. I take it as it does. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't suggest any editorial oversight to me. The sheer breadth of the listings (At the moment they list 6881 projects) suggests that they are an indiscriminate directory, which I do not believe would help to build a case for notability. - MrOllie (talk) 20:24, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Compare it to 323546 open source projects on SourceForge. Actually, 6881 is by far less then Debian's package list, whose rules for inclusion is stricter then just being free software, so it's definitely not indiscriminate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the fact that it's one of programs included to OpenBSD base installation (as opposed to software packages like GNOME, Firefox, LibreOffice, JDK and friends) makes it notable on its own. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITED. - MrOllie (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about inheritance. There are about 30000 pieces of software available in packages' repositories of FLOSS UNIX-like operating systems, and only about 100 pieces of software included in base systems of such OS's. This list is no way indiscriminate, and cwm is one of them. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ari Sorko-Ram

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

Fails notability as an actor and for general notability Kylfingers (talk) 21:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. --Cox wasan (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable actor, should probably be speedied under A7. --Madison-chan (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only minor roles. Vincelord (talk) 16:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NN. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I recreated the redirect to The Dandy; there was no verified content so there was nothing to merge. Drmies (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pepperoni Pig

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

Unremarkable cartoon character. Contested redirect. No significant coverage. Google search on "Pepperoni Pig" dandy shows only 118 unique results, none from reliable sources - primarily primary sources, fan sites, and other wikis. Article creator has vowed to edit-war to keep the article, so I'm bringing this here for resolution. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with list of Dandy strips. Eopsid (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Google results above show a few blogs which may not be reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. I found nothing at ~~Gooble~~ (ETA) Google Book search. Does not appear to pass notability. Edison (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - with The Dandy as a relevant search term. →Σ τ c. 20:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I want this article to be kept, it is a notable strip in a well-known comic. What more do you want? From Beanscene (talk) 21:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)— Beanscene (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - why is it notable? You give no real reason other than your say-so, which carries no weight in this discussion. As for appearing in The Dandy, you should also read WP:NOTINHERITED - just because it appears in the magazine doesn't confer it any special status. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Trust me, son, i'm an expert on comics, which you might not know about. In my opinion, Pepperoni Pig is notable, so there. Beanscene (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ah, the condescending response with no valid reasons. A really effective argument</sarcasm>. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'll use what I call the "three buttock test" (named after a Monty Python sketch), which is basically, anyone anywhere on the internet can say "Trust me, son, I'm an expert on comics", but if you can't prove it easily, nobody will believe you. I can easily say "Trust me, son, I'm an expert on nuclear physics", but it doesn't mean I am, and I've been on the net long enough to know there are so many liars, charlatans and con artists out there, that's it's safer to assume somebody's lying if they have no proof, as it's more likely to be the case. --Ritchie333 (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have cupboards full of Beanos and Dandys from 1994 onwards to today, and I know lots of obscure details. Did you know in the 2007 Annual story "Teacher & Head:Parent's Night", one of the books Teacher is balancing on his head has the artist's signiture, Kev F, but oddly written in the style used by The Dandy in 2004-2007. Beanscene (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sorry, but you did not answer my question. How can you prove you are a recognised expert on this? Would I be able to verify your claims by contacting D C Thompson & Co? I have copies of The Beano stretching back to 1979 in my parents' loft, but this means nothing. --Ritchie333 (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ By saying that very obscure fact, that was meant to confirm I know more about comics than most people do. True, it only looks like that particular font, but I know plenty other obscure facts. In the 1998 Dandy Annual Hector Spectre story, the dog is speaking through a speech bubble in the first panel but in the last panel it's a thought bubble. Happy now? Beanscene (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)— Beanscene (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~*Keep~~ Again, I am doing this to make you understand! I am entitled to my opinion more than most! I am a- n- ex- pert. I have just said this in the style of the french chef trying to get Desperate Dan to eat buffalo poopsies, in an issue of the Dandy Xtreme in 2008, this man was also featured on the back cover of the issue dated 28th May 2011. Beanscene (talk) 19:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)— Beanscene (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment We could keep going like this all night (I used to have the T shirt that had Desperate Dan enter a "largest chin" contest and came second to a chimpanzee, I bought the first Beano Comic Library in 1982, which I think was King Dennis, though my memory is a little hazy, I remember Mike Read appearing under the 1986 "Gnasher's Missing" serial, I remember the "Somebody's after your smarties" Dennis and Gnasher advertising campaign in 1981), but anyway - you've been asked why this strip is notable several times, and every time you've evaded the answer and pulled some other bit of trivia to divert attention away from that. I'm afraid I'm going to come to the conclusion that you don't understand what I'm saying. Fair enough. --Ritchie333 (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This comic-book character is simply not notable. If Beanscene refuses to have the article deleted then he should be blocked from editing for a few hours. --Madison-chan (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~ I was just trying to tell you I know more about comics than you do, but you didnt heed me. Beanscene (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "This comic-book character is simply not notable." Hark who's talking! It's a COMIC. Not a book. Beanscene (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A comic book is just an American term for what we in the UK simply call a comic. So "comic-book character" is a perfectly valid description, Beanscene. The issue with this particular character is that he only made his debut a year ago, which is small fry in The Dandy's 74 year history. There are plenty of other famous Dandy characters without Wikipedia articles, so I won't be surprised to see it go, but if the article stays, that's fine by me too. Digifiend (talk) 20:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Beanscene, please stop saying you're a "comic book expert" until you provide reliable sources saying you are an expert. I still believe this article should be deleted, BTW. --Madison-chan (talk) 14:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Beanscene won't be joining us anymore - seems he was blocked as asockpuppet of another Dandy/Beano-related SPA. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can't this AFD be closed already? It's already been established that this comic book character/comic strip is not notable. --Madison-chan (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no. First, it has not been proven non-notable; it has merely not yet been proven notable, Fortunately, we don't have to prove things non-notable to delete them, or we could almost never delete anything, We delete when nobody is able to show something is notable. It is perfectly possible that someone else may make an argument; occasionally someone will come with actual references or a sound argument at the last minute, which is why AfDs run for 7 days. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect with Dandy - insufficiently notable for it's own article. --Joopercoopers (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Danish furniture designers

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

Delete. A list that is predominantly red links and the links to articles that exist can be incorporated into Danish design. That article could do with a section on "Furniture design" with prose and with a list of some of the more notable Danish furniture designers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. List may need some maintenance but given that there are several notable Danish furniture designers, I don't see a reason to delete. --Michig (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for any maintenance of the list itself. Also, the fact that there are "several notable Danish furniture designers" is not a reason to keep the list. As mentioned these designers can be part of the Danish design article. For readers, who we are here after-all to serve, a small list of notable designers - preferable with information about them - is better than a basic list consisting mainly of redlinks. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – WP:SALAT, WP:LISTPEOPLE and WP:LISTCOMPANY do indicate that several notable list members is a reason to keep. MoS indicates a preference for categories (i.e., Category:Danish furniture designers) for stand-alone company/designer articles and mentioning them within prose. However, when there are enough articles within the category to merit a stand-alone list, even non-notable companies and persons (with supporting reference) may be listed. In this case, it looks like there are at least 31 30 designers notable enough for their own articles. I'd say this number is substantial, and I'd agree the list article needs a lot of editorial attention. JFHJr (㊟) 20:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This list was already deleted once without notice and I restored it. I am in the process of writing a considerable number of articles on Danish furniture designers and I find this list a useful point of reference. There are far fewer red links now than there were a few days ago. Note that furniture design is an extremely important aspect of Danish culture and industry. When I have time, I could try to improve the list by dividing it into periods, etc., but the priority now is to write articles on the designers themselves. @Alan Liefting, the place to look is not so much Danish design but Danish modern which is devoted specifically to furniture, especially the Golden Age of Danish Design. If you had looked at Danish design more carefully you would have seen "Danish modern" under "See also". I don't really agree that Danish design should be overloaded with the furniture aspect but that's my own opinion - others might disagree and there might even be a case for combining the articles later. I am personally very thankful to those who developed the list as it provides an indication of who should be included in future biographies. When I tried to find it again yesterday it had disappeared and the categories did not help. That's why I restored it. So let's keep it at least for a couple of weeks. - Ipigott (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A list that is used for editors that is of little or no use to readers can be moved to user or project namespace. I am aware of the notability of Danish furniture design and designers and I would prefer a Danish furniture design article rather than this list. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do think it is only used by editors? The page views do not seem to indicate this. They are indeed comparable to those for List of Danish architects (which seems to exist happily side by side with Architecture of Denmark) and similar lists of Danes. In any case, it seems to me that lists and articles serve quite different purposes. So perhaps it's the red links that are bothering you? Would you be happy to keep the list if these are removed or do you think all these lists should be deleted and somehow incorporated into articles? If the red links are the problem, then I think this discussion should be moved to the article's talk page. As for an article on Danish furniture design, I have indeed suggested myself that it would be useful to have a historical overview of the topic from the beginnings to the present (the article would probably be called Furniture of Denmark) but as by far the most important period of Danish furniture is Danish modern (sometimes called Mid-century Danish furniture), I decided to write this up first. For your information, a similar list can be found in the Danish Wikipedia here with a considerable number of red links too! - Ipigott (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or incubate until the red comes put. Bearian (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Denmark's outsize influence upon furniture design is complemented by the great number of Danish individuals who have achieved international stature in the field. This list is a good and useful addition to an underrepresented topic. SteveStrummer (talk) 06:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:34, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crocus Modeller

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

Does not meet notability guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Spam --Northernhenge (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only realible(?) source I could find was this: Flash Magazine. All other sources are things like blogs, forum threads, etc. --Madison-chan (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete (snow) Neutrality^talk 00:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Importance of relationships - Online studies

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

Meaningless twaddle Mean as custard (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's by no means "meaningless twaddle", but Wikipedia is not a place for personal, unsourced essays. Joefridayquaker (talk) 17:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research essay. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as yet another obvious WP:NOT violation. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously - personal essay -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shatru of Kathmandu

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

Unremarkable book, possible self-promotion. No independent coverage. Google search on "Shatru of Kathmandu" shows only 7 unique results MikeWazowski (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems worse than Nom suggests, I find ZERO results for search ("Shatru of Kathmandu" -wikipedia -facebook) so no evidence of Notability at all, ~~just one worried author, poor fellow~~. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have created this page based on a novel written by a Nepalese author who have written several other novels as well as medical textbooks. Yes, they are usually meant for Nepalese readers. Please note that Nepal is still an undeveloped country and vast majority of publications are not mentioned online. This book happens to be recently published as well, and came in Nepalese market around a month ago. I beleive this novel is well written and a must read for Nepalese readers and those with interest in Nepal. I would also try to edit this page to add more information. If you think that an article from Nepal doesnt have a place in Wikipedia, I have nothing more to say.

I would also appreciate if Chiswick Chap stop using words such as "one worried author, poor fellow". The author happens to write this novel after going through a life threatening incident of being shot in Kathmandu in 2006. Try searching Hemang Dixit. The issue was a major news back then and was even raised in the Nepalese Parliament. December2011 (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you object to my words of sympathy, I have struck them out. In fact they were based on Dixit's words "I am very worried about the fate of my book "SHATRU of Kathmandu" which is being officially released on 26th October at Kathmandu", http://kmc.academia.edu/ProfHemangDixit.

Secondly, you propose a different search, such as for 'Hemang Dixit'. This indeed yields many more results, but these are not about Shatru of Kathmandu, and Notability is not inherited (WP:NOTINHERITED). Hence we are back to what I wrote above - there are no independent sources for the new book. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (books). Edison (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately this just doesn't meet notability guidelines at this time as far as WP:NBOOK goes. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Was improved during the AfD; would need a new AfD if still deemed problematic. Sandstein 20:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Species dysphoria

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

Relatively newly invented term, not much substance to the article besides explaining what it's not; the only reference is a spammy-looking link that doesn't work anymore. Brief googling didn't return anything better either. — Jean Calleo ^(talk) 16:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Searching on Google Books and Scholar shows at least one paper [2] from Archives of Sexual Behaviour Volume 38, Number 4, 605-609, "A Case Study of Preferential Bestiality" by Christopher M. Earls and Martin L. Lalumière; and three books [3], [4] and [5]. The term seems to have been in use since at least 2001. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not so new as to fail WP:NEO, and possibly can pass WP:FRINGE. We certainly have lots of weird articles at WP:ODD. I found two articles at Google scholar, but none at EBSCOhost or Points of View databases. Bearian (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - worked hard on editing the entry to add proper cites, etc. I hope it is looking better now... thank you to Cusop Dingle for giving those links! I found other references too, the Becoming Dragon project was a very good reference, and, Lupa's A Field Guide to Otherkin has a good section. My friend found some other scholary papers, is going to the library to photocopy them so we can add references is they are useful. Cygnus olor sapiens (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there's also a mention of "species identity disorder" in a paper by Gerbasi here[6], and the paper "Animal house: Lycanthropy, or the delusion of being an animal", presented in the book The witch in the waiting room, a physician examines paranormal phenomena in medicine also mentions species identity disorder. I am buying the book so, I am going to read through and see how significant it is, the preview on Google Books[7] seems significant. Cygnus olor sapiens (talk) 11:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm going to go out on a limb and state this appears to be on its way towards showing notability, having been improved a great deal. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced article page. — Cirt (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) 00:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Lewis

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

Football player of dubious notability. Only source in the article only mentions the subject twice. Article creator User:Rockall4 is a single-purpose account, possibly in a conflict of interest. bender235 (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not seem to have ever played professional football, so fails WP:FOOTYN, no significant source coverage so fails WP:GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - played in a "fully professional league" (Scottish First Division) with East Fife. I also found suggestions that he played for Trinidad and Tobago at senior level. [8] Clavdia chauchat (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I wouldn't call that a reputable source, but if we can find better online data, but I can't seem to be able too, Govvy (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as unverified. Without reliable sources to back claims to notability, this article fails WP:GNG, and WP:NSPORT. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (t) 00:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Werner G. Goering

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

Evidence that this individual was NOT the nephew of the Nazi Reichsmarschall. Only evidence to the contrary seems to be repetition of a recent myth RodCrosby (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close - Nominator does not advance a policy-based reason for deletion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

if that is a reference to me, I'm sorry but I am not familiar with the minutiae of policy terminology. However, I have advanced what appear to me to be common-sense reasons for deletion on the article talk page. RodCrosby (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Mr. Werner G. Goering actually exists, but is NOT the nephew of Hermann Goering, I think the article should be kept because he was a notable WWII bomber pilot, and to mention and spike the rumor or hoax. If he is H. G.'s nephew, then that is even more notable. If Werner G. Goering never lived, that is a reason to delete the article. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC) Eric[reply]

Delete Notability is not inherited, the book used as a source Untold Valor: Forgotten Stories of American Bomber Crews Over Europe in World War Two links to a self published site [9] The actual book does not mention this person on the page cited. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The book [10] was originally an Xlibris book but was then picked up by Potomac Books, aka Brassey's [11], and does mention the fact. The 303rd Bomb Group Association's site [12] also states the concerned fact. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the claim is either true or a somehow notable hoax, it can be addressed in a sentence or two in the Hermann Göring article. Neutrality^talk 00:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This subject doesn't appear to touch the floor per WP:GNG. As a threshold issue, there is a paucity of in-depth coverage; it's mostly passing mention. A glance at WP:SOLDIER doesn't provide any special grounds to argue, and it's an essay anyway. As Neutrality points out, the content most properly belongs at the Hermann Göring article. JFHJr (㊟) 07:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

posters on Axis History investigated the military service of Hermann Goering's relatives and descibe the US nephew story as "totally bogus". Werner Goering possibly might have been a very distant relative, but certainly not a nephew. Karl, the Reichsmarschall's brother died in Hannover in 1932, not in Salt Lake City! I suggest all mention of Werner should be removed. RodCrosby (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing even close to lending notability is the assertion he's related to H. Goering, and other than the bare assertion there seems to be no comment on that idea or on the subject himself, outside of standard WWII military histories reciting interesting (which is not that same as notable) soldiers. One round, in a single work, of "interviewer says X, subject says X'" does not count any kind of notable controversy. A case of BLP(1/2)E. EEng (talk) 11:01, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But for the exaggerated/tenuous/false relationship to Hermann, would Werner G. Goering otherwise merit inclusion in WP? Isn't that the question? RodCrosby (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that even if he were the nephew, I don't see that as making him notable, and without it I don't see notability either. EEng (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:G4 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) (non-admin closure)--Breawycker (talk to me!) 21:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Icarly season 6

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

Unsourced speculation about a future TV broadcast. The lack of sources mean it is not verifiable by readers and violates the rules that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Previously subject to a proposed deletion, but that was removed without comment by the orignal author, so bringing here for comment. Sparthorse (talk) 15:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Author blanked the page before all this so should be speedy per db-author - so tagged. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced crystal ball gazing. (Looking at the history, the author did blank it but straight away recreated it as originally, and I don't think that can really be seen as a valid G7 request to delete - so I have declined the speedy deletion request) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced WP:CRYSTAL. Article was blanked by the author and then validly tagged for CSD A3. Author should not have removed the speedy tag.[13] --AussieLegend (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally tagged it per Proposed Deletion then the author blanked the page.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 19:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the comments at previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICarly (season 6) Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As it has already been deleted by AfD last month and the latest one is not better, it's eligible for CSD:G4, so I've tagged it as such -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regular Ordinary Swedish Meal Time

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

This page page was created by the creators of this Youtube series (see the discussion thread, where the article creator introduced themselves). Until last night it had no citations that weren't just links to their own site, and when a Speedy Deletion template was thrown up it was quickly removed by another anonymous IP and a few SVT links tossed up, and by the comments it looks again like the only editor on that page is the person running Regular Ordinary Swedish Meal Time. Even with a couple of links to SVT, it really doesn't seem like a small Youtube channel whose only media coverage is in a foreign language meets WP:Notability, otherwise we're pretty much saying that every temporarily popular internet video should have its own Wikipedia page. There may be a time for this article, but it doesn't seem to be now. Piuro (talk) 15:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying that it should be kept (nor that it shouldn't), but why would it matter that the subject's media coverage isn't in English?--In Donaldismo Veritas (talk) 08:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because of what it is, it's a minor youtube video that has anything resembling notability primarily in another language. Even as a Swedish speaker myself, I can't see how this should be the standard to which youtube hits are held. If it is, then we open the door to a whole host of youtube videos from all over the world that benefited from a slow news day. Piuro (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to add more than delete per nom. Bearian (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom reasons. The various references all go to sites that show the video, not actual articles discussing the series itself. A gsearch didn't bring anything up that would show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

Comment: And in response to the "if _____ has an article then why not us" comment on the article's talk page, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, although I don't think they were saying that in a serious tone of voice. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shahdaei paradox

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

Classical example of vanity page. GScholar finds zero hits for "shahdaei", let alone "shahaei paradox". Idem for Gbooks. The journal (physics international) where the primary article on which this is apparently based is so obscure that it is not even indexed by GScholar. (or any other database I tried) T R 15:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I just found this article while doing GA reviews. The creator has nominated this article twice, and mine was the second quick fail. It appears to me to be POV pushing of a fringe theory. All the references except for the "Physics International" article are not directly related to the subject. I see no reason why this deserves a stand-alone article. AstroCog (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I've tried to clean up the page and to coax the author into saying things more plainly but it hasn't worked, and I guess I felt it had some external support:

a plain google for (shahdaei paradox -wikipedia) gives a good-sounding 156 hits today;

but ("shahdaei paradox" -wikipedia -wikimedia) gives only 62,

while ("shahdaei paradox" -wikipedia -wikimedia -wapedia -"latest news and information on") gives only 7, and all of those are either WP derivatives or wordlist sites. Oh dear.

Conclusion: Absolutely no support beyond Koorosh Shahdaei himself. Quite a COI. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I removed a fair amount of copy-vios and close paraphrases, I agree that this appears to be a fringe theory with no mainstream support. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete, the fact is that there exist a paradox, whih is obvoius, as truly there is no length contration at Y direction. The reason for having other soures, it mailny about symmetry and approximations that are used as arguments in this article. The other fact is that the paradox is novel and it is not very strange at this early stage to find other articles disussing this. If someone thinks that the paradox doesn't exist please motivate. About the name as I mentioned to other editors, it is not important to shahdaei paradox name, it could be change. kooroh shahdaei 17:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koorosh.shahdaei (talk • contribs) — Koorosh.shahdaei (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
When this paradox is discussed in reliable sources, which for this subject would be quality peer reviewed journals, then a Wikipedia article may well be appropriate. Until then it is not. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Whether the paradox exists or not is irrelevant for this discussion. The issue at hand is notability as described in the WP:N guideline. The basic minimal requirement is that the subject is covered in multiple independent third party sources. Wikipedia is not a platform to present your personal research. See WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX.T R 17:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

____ Physics International is a peer review journal, initially this was one of the requirements that wa accepted by wikipedia in the begining, the fact is that this is something that gives a value to readers and science in general, so why delete, if we want to share knowledge?kooroh shahdaei 18:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

peer reviewed journals which is a primary requirement for publishing an article, as regards "Science Publication/Physics International" it covers almost all kind of science and is as stated by this Publication itself: Physics International is a peer reviewed international scientific journal launched to cover current research in Physics. This journal is an open access and devoted to the publication of research / review articles concerned with the description, solution, and applications of physics. Bold text. Then this part is certainly fulfilled, as also initially was accepted by Wikipedia. kooroh shahdaei 18:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koorosh.shahdaei (talk • contribs) — Koorosh.shahdaei (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Indeed appreciate all comments and feedback so far, which are very valuable. In the comments it was a common discussion about the copy right issue, for me it was the first Wikipedia article and the intentions was not at all making any violation, rather it was a misunderstanding, I just deleted the copy right text, but didn’t follow the procedure as it wasn’t clear in the first place. The intention is not indeed to promote own ideas, it is just simply to make a little contribution to science, at the same time the requirements must be fulfilled, so regardless how this discussion will end, I strongly believe that all human beings should share any valuable ideas for a better world. kooroh shahdaei 22:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koorosh.shahdaei (talk • contribs)

You are failing to understand. If you wish to contribute to science fine, but Wikipedia is not the place. This is an encyclopaedia where articles are sourced to reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as gobbledegook and junk science. A more charitable interpretation is that the article is a hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete as not notable -- only appears in Shahdaei's own paper. -- 202.124.75.227 (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do not Delete~~I think we need scientific arguments rather than expressions like gobbledegook and junk science or hoax. This is a simple fact that we have a paradox and it is not difficult to understand e.g. looking at figures and the animation, they are pedagogical. I agree that the text might be made easier to be understand, in that case need suggestion. As it is novel it takes time as some of paradoxes can take years to be commonly accepted, but it doesn’t mean we should disregard them as they are new. Please it would be better for everybody that we have scientific arguments as regards e.g. the physical part and text. kooroh shahdaei 08:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koorosh.shahdaei (talk • contribs) — Koorosh.shahdaei (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Koorosh, please don't take offense, you have made your point. The issue here is not whether the science is right or wrong, but whether Wikipedia is the right place for this article. The guideline (WP:OR) explicitly forbids 'Original Research' in the encyclopedia - this is not a research journal; the only sources which are acceptably reliable are independent, secondary publications such as reviews and newspaper articles about science - we can't rely either on other Wikipedia articles, or on an author's own publications (as evidence of notability). It is not our job to judge science, that is for the editors of Nature and other journals. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chiswick Chap, thank you for your comments, as already pointed out this article was published by an publisher which works under peer reviewed journalism principal. kooroh shahdaei 09:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koorosh.shahdaei (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. And while not directly relevant to the determination of consensus which is quite clear, I wanted to note MQS' remark "please let's not have editors demanding ongoing modern English coverage for a Dutch film comedian who died nearly 100 years ago. We have books." which absolutely made my day. We do indeed have books and may many articles be based on them. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lion Solser

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Based on not usable references (Linkedin and Facebook) Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Starring in in the 1896 comedy film Gestoorde hengelaar by M.H. Laddé, which was the first Dutch fictional film, is a pretty decent assertion of notability... and is verifiable.[14] Time then to use available sources and correct the issue. And as this person died in Rotterdam in 1915, please let's not have editors demanding ongoing modern English coverage for a Dutch film comedian who died nearly 100 years ago. We have books. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - If starring in the film Gestoorde Hengelaar isn't a assertion of notability, I'm not sure what is. --Madison-chan (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He played in just two movies. They were not major stars, even in The Netherlands. See WP:NACTOR, that does not give different rules for old movies and/or actors. Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Pardon, but just how many films do you think were being made in 1896 in the Netherlands?? How many film stars do you assert even existed in the Netherlands in 1896... in an era where the primitive nature of films made many think that film itself was only a curiosity or passing fancy?? Falls under WP:ENT#3 as unique and innovative. We do not judge films or actors from the very birth of the history of film in the same manner as we do something done last year by some big studio. No, as an encyclopedia we do our best to preserve information about cinematic history for posterity. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, because this is an encyclopedia, and this is clearly, per the basic common sense that anyone qualified to edit an encyclopedia should have, an encyclopedic subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even so, the article is based on completely unusable sources. Cut them, and you have an unsourced article about a person, a strong nono. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As this is not a BLP, and we do have decent sources available about this deceased individual from the very ealiest days of cinema history, the "nono" is more a reason to address the issue through regular editing than it is to delete because it had not yet been done by someone else. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article contains no references to Linkedin or Facebook, so that argument is wrong. Satisfies WP:ENT #3, historically distinct contribution. Unscintillating (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The consensus below is that coverage in independent, reliable sources is insufficient to justify an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Net Talk Live!

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

When MikeWazowski (talk · contribs) proposed the article for deletion, his concern was "Unremarkable local TV program. No significant coverage." That's still the case. There are two sources, but they're both in Dallas, so there's no evidence the subject has any notability outside of the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex. —C.Fred (talk) 13:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. When I tried searching news for this show, I got lots of results, but almost all of them were scheduling information in the Dallas area. Does not meet WP:GNG.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my original reasons. A Google News search on "Net Talk Live!" shows mainly local schedule info or trivial mentions, no significant coverage. A standard search shows a lot of unreliable sources, social media, trivial listing information, or YouTube/video clips. There's no denying it existed, but there's no significant coverage - certainly none to back up the spurious claims added to the article at one point that every major broadcast network in the country carried this program. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A few days ago, I added the sources now in the article, because they were the best I could find. I removed several unreliable sources. I've concluded that coverage in reliable sources is inadequate to show that Net Talk Live! is notable, and this article (along with the related CueCat) has become a magnet for COI and POV editing. Someone is trying to create a rosy, controlled history here, and we should not allow any such revisionism. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources do not establish notability. - MrOllie (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pretty much per nom and other contributors. Utterly non-notable. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The original premise MikeWazowski (talk · contribs) proposed the article for deletion, his concern was "Unremarkable local TV program. No significant coverage." However this has already been proven untrue by the source I added [15] showing it was a syndicated program airing outside of the Dallas area.Ran kurosawa (talk) 06:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This source brought forward by Ran Kurosawa is not significant coverage useful for establishing notability because it is simply a reprint of a 1997 press release announcing an upcoming premiere which had not yet occurred. No one is saying that the show did not exist, but rather that it is not notable. This source includes no critical commentary on the show and no in-depth discussion of its contents. It isn't even a freestanding article but is part of a series of short blurbs on various TV shows that includes speculation about the possible renewal of Jerry Seinfeld's show and an announcement of an upcoming documentary on the tobacco industry. It is crystal ball stuff about upcoming events. It is filler material, not significant coverage. Ran kurosawa, you seem to be acting as a single purpose acccount editing only this and closely related articles. Please declare any conflict of interest that you may have regarding this show, its creator or his inventions and patents. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Serranilla Bank#History. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Serranilla Bank

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

A bank of sand in the Caribbean with no majorly notable history except for an overlap in territorial claims that is already described in detail at Serranilla Bank. Whether it meets notability requirements is questionable, but this doesn't seem to matter as there really isn't all that much potential that would warrant a forking of the main article. I redirected it to that article, but it was reverted. Deletion is probably best as it wouldn't classify as a viable search term. Nightw 13:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Serranilla Bank#History for now until a full length article can be written, if it can..♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Reasonable stub with some sources. Needs work. Alarbus (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I created the article as it was a redlink in the "history of every US state and island template": Template:U.S. political divisions histories. I doubt it can be justified as a separate article. Tom B (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that template should be replaced with {{United States topic}}, where we can easily remove that set of (perpetual red)links as unnecessary. Nightw 14:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Serranilla Bank#History as per Blofeld. That keeps the blue link in the template. If the section grows to hold enough content, it could always be split out. But the main point of interest about the bank seems to be the history of disputes, so a split would need careful justification. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The entire material has already been merged by Dr. Blofeld. Short of beings from outer space landing there, or similarly unpredictable developments, the main article for this essentially uninhabited tiny reef, is extremely unlikely to grow to the point where a breakout article can be justified. It's not a likely search term, but a redirect from it will solve the difficulty of the redlink in the template, just as it does for History of Johnston Atoll DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There's almost no hope of this surviving as an article, but there's a possibility someone may search for it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Interesting number paradox. 28bytes (talk) 06:16, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12407 (number)

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

Declined A7, with rationale

This number is not notable - that it was used on a TV show once is really rather a poor excuse. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. Although see Interesting number paradox#Paradoxical nature; I bet QI pulled this "fact" off Wikipedia. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Some real world coverage of this number should meet the WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Turn it into a redirect. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it to what exactly? Lugnuts (talk) 18:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep it is just way too meta to delete it for unnotability. --IIVeaa (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – single and unreliable source. – Smyth\^talk 18:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At most, redirect to Interesting number paradox - there is just not enough notability for a whole article. 109.154.94.244 (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is up to those asserting notability to find multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage of this integer. Not every number is notable, or I could create an infinite number of articles. Found no coverage of it at Google books search as anything other than one more integer used in the humdrum counting or numbering of things. The passing reference in a comedy show "Inland revenue" falls far below the threshold of establishing notability. Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
redirect as above. No reliable sources that don't involve OR, and even they fall far short of GNG requirements.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Interesting number paradox where it's already mentioned, or delete. This is just one of several published examples of "Smallest uninteresting number", based on being the smallest number not appearing in a particular place at the time of publication. 12407 is based on currently not being among the listed terms in the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS). Other numbers had this distinction in the past and others probably will in the future. And as their name says, OEIS is for sequences and not individual integers. Lots of their sequences contain 12407 when more terms of the sequence are shown than the usual around three lines. For example, 12407 = 19×653 is a semiprime so it's eventually in oeis:A001358. Clicking "Table of n, a(n) for n = 1..10000" shows it as term 3235. There are also OEIS sequences for things like odd numbers (oeis:A005408), composite numbers (oeis:A002808), and all natural numbers (oeis:A000027). All of these include 12407 in a linked table. 12407 (number)#Other uses only mentions 12407 Riccardi, one of more than 100,000 sequentially numbered minor planets, and a zip code for an unimportant town of 784 people. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, or someone will start arguing that there are three interesting facts about 12407 as well as being uninteresting. Dingo1729 (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Interesting number paradox. Suraj T 03:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The claim about this number on Interesting number paradox isn't referenced to a reliable source, so I don't see much point in a redirect. Even assuming the claim about the OEIS is true, because numbers are regularly added to the OEIS 12407's status is likely to to change (the non-reliable source I mentioned claims that 2 other numbers have held this position in the last 3 years), so it's not something to keep for the ages. Why would anybody search for 12407 on Wikipedia anyway? --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Interesting number paradox. And by the way, A7 is only applicable to people, groups, animals, or websites that don't assert importance (not notability). The article passed both parts. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Interesting number paradox. I have just watched the QI episode; the fact /is/ quite interesting but I can see why it's not enough to keep a place of it own doktorb _words^deeds 22:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if we ignore the untruth of the main claim in the article (lots of sequences would contain this number if only they weren't arbitrarily cut off earlier, and -12407 does appear in OEIS:A160077) we usually need three interesting mathematical properties to keep a number article. "Not being listed in a database due to an arbitrary cutoff" is not an interesting mathematical property and it's only one. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All integers are worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. This must be true, as if not, there would be a lowest unnoteworthy number, which by this fact would become noteworthy, thus leading to a logical paradox. — Hyperdeath^(Talk) 23:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note from nominator: This would appear to fail WP:NUMBER#Integers; I encourage all posters to look at this specific notability guideline. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect 12,407 does not meet the three criteria presented at WP:NUMBER#Notability of kinds of numbers. HurricaneFan 25 19:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You people are seriously arguing that some random number is deserving of an article? Jtrainor (talk) 12:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Daemon Tools. Merge, with a redirect. Drmies (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media Data Extended

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Fleet Command (talk) 06:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fails to comply with Wikipedia:Notability as this subject fails to provide evidences of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable file format used by a single application of questionable notability. Pburka (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Daemon Tools, where this information is ironically missing. It is actually worth mentioning in that article. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Dennis. Jab843 (talk) 21:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a common file format. It can't be redirected to Daemon Tools because it is used by other programs. Not everything in this world needs to have staggering importance in order to have a WP page. Szzuk (talk) 09:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, this is just your opinion; Wikipedia has its own notability policy and this article is in violation of it. For more information, please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions § Personal point of view. Fleet Command (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - With all due respect I know all that and I'm not convinced you carried out WP:BEFORE. Szzuk (talk) 13:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - A change of tactics, I see. I deny that. Perhaps you would be so kind as to supply us with evidences that proves I did not perform WP:BEFORE; although I do not think it makes any difference, since WP:NRVE and WP:BURDEN. Fleet Command (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - This isn't a military campaign, however given your name I can see the humour! Thank you for the laugh :) I think you'll lose this one because someone else will ref it before the end of the AfD, if not so be it. Signing off HMS Trump (P333).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Szzuk (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per Dennis Brown. --Kvng (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No offense but our dear Dennis Brown as well as all of you should know that "merge" and "redirect" are antonyms in Wikipedia AFD vernacular. "Merge" is akin to "keep" (it means "keep elsewhere"), "redirect" is akin to "delete" (it means "delete all but the title"). I hope you do excuse me, but I couldn't resist commenting on this, although I gather that Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid § Per nominator also couldn't resist. Fleet Command (talk) 18:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - A "Redirect" is not a delete, and you have been here enough years that you should know that, particularly if you are going to be nominating articles for deletion. You just replace the content with a single line of text, the article's history remains intact and you can still go and read it. This is a legal point that can't be overlooked. The license that Wikipedia uses requires a redirect when you merge, in order to maintain a history of edits and attribution. Or you could merge all the histories, which is not trivial, thus we merge and redirect instead. If the information in this article was already in the parent company article, I would have said to delete, then just created a fresh redirect. In this case, the article is no good, but the information IS, and to just copy it over is against the license, and well, cheesy. Also, it isn't necessary to reply to every poster. Dennis Brown (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wow, you are turning into a fireball over a simple difference of opinion and start accusing others of bludgeoning? Now, now, angry mastodons are extinct. And WP:AFDFORMAT thinks what I said is correct. But, you do whatever you like. Fleet Command (talk) 07:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - If there is legitimate worry something doesn't exist, it cannot possibly meet WP:V. Prodego ^talk 22:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The New Girl in Town

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

It has been proven, time and time again, on MANY Selena sites over the years, and even from Selena Quintanilla's father, himself, that this album DOES NOT exist. 'The New Girl in Town' is a long standing rumor within the Selena fandom that started back in the late 1990s. The songs listed as the tracks from the album were independently released singles from Cara Records (which is now all but defunct) in the state of Texas. At no point were these songs ever released, together, as a complete album.

I can tell you from looking at this article, that much of what is written is completely fabricated, and not true. There is a person by the name of 'Jona' who goes around editing all of Selena's pages with untruths that have been proven many times as being false. He thinks he knows all possible Selena facts, but he does not. He's only a good story teller, at best.

Also, the album cover posted is not real, either. It is a photoshopped image of Selena from the mid-1980s; no such album cover exists, because the album itself does not exist. :) This page needs to be taken down; it's needed to be deleted for a very long time. It's time to put all of these rumors to rest. If somebody wants to make a page with information about these songs as SINGLE releases, and not as an album, that would be fine. But the fans need to stop being fooled.

This article is 95% complete fabrication; all that is correct are the titles of the songs, who recorded them (Selena y Los Dinos), and who released them (Cara Records). Everything else is one big lie, and for that reason, I would like to see this article removed. MissouriSunshine (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've corrected the formatting of the nomination, above, and will relist this debate - it does not appear in the log, nor is the article tagged as required. Consider this timestamp as day 1 of the debate, and proceed accordingly. No comment on the merits, though - on point of process - sources that contradict what is in the article would go a long way to proving the nominator's points. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing I say is false in this article (which is sourced) the title of this album (sourced by Joe Nick Patoski) is true. I do agree that its a made up album by fans since the family did indeed told everyone that it does not exist. However, since there aren't WP:RS from them or anyone else, I couldn't just say "this album was believed to be false" that's WP:OR. The artwork is from a Selena fan site that I placed a "non-free cover". Please do not insult me thanks. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 13:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume you meant to reply to the nominator and not to me. I asked that the nominator support his/her statements with sources. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was replying to his/her comment(s). I do support the album is "fake" however, numerous publications state otherwise, I can't add what fans, friends and the family of Selena say. It has to be sourced. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 14:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, it's me again. As for needing proof that the album is fake, well, think about it. Some people have said that the album had to be taken off of the market, because some copyrights for the songs couldn't be cleared. This couldn't ever be possible, because you need to have permission to clear ALL songs before an album can ever be released to the public. All Selena album covers from her earliest years have been released, except for this one. If it were real, it would have been released, too. Some people also try to say, it was remastered and released in 1990. This is also obviously false, because then we would know for sure, if the album existed or not, because Selena was already a star at this point, and the album would have been more mainstream.

Look at this website: http://www.selena-online.com/Thenewalbumhistoriaeng <-- it helps to verify a lot of things. It shows the original photoshopped album cover that got this whole mess of a rumor started. Then, if you click on this link, http://www.selena-online.com/LinkDiscographye.html <-- they ask Abraham himself, if the album is real. The interview is in Spanish, but basically, Abraham says that the album isn't real, and the title of 'The New Girl in Town' was meant to be the title of her DEBUT album, and not for anything else.

As for the editor of said Wikipedia page, AJona, I should have known it was him who created the page. You can't listen to this guy. He's been hanging around the Selena fandom for years, and he is known to make up information out of thin air, and try to pass it off as the truth. He's a good storyteller and all, but everything he says about Selena is a lie. He's tried before in the past to make it sound like he's close to the Quintanilla's, but he just isn't. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if HE was the one that started the rumor of this album, in the first place. He's very aggressive about having his opinion be heard (and is just very aggressive, period); you can't take this guy and his non-truths seriously. I'm not saying this to bash anyone, I'm saying this because it's the truth, and the truth needs to be out there.

My sources, if you will, being common sense for one, and for two, the Selena sites I just linked you to twice, aren't without reason. The Selena fansite I linked you to has been around for many, many years, and is highly reputable within the fandom itself. It's one of the few out there that doesn't spread around lies and half-truths like they're some kind of gospel. Plus, the Quintanilla family have said over and over that the album isn't real. Love them or hate them, regardless, if ANYONE should know if that album is real or not, it's the family. Why would they deny it? Had EMI Latin not screwed the Quintanilla family over in rights to Selena's songs years ago, they'd have released everything there is to release, by now. Granted, they're still trying their hardest to get all they can, out there. And if The New Girl in Town were in fact real, it would have either been released at the same time, or right after Selena's 1984 debut was re-released by Freddie Records, in 2002.

If my argument doesn't hold enough water, then I'm sorry. I think I've said all there is to be said, right now, about this topic. But I can tell you, the people who claim up and down that this album is real, never look for actual PROOF of it's existence. They just assume it's real, and try to beat it into people's heads, like they're brainwashed. The proof is all around us that this album is fake. There's no proof at all that it is real. I have all of Selena's albums in my possession, and TNGIT is not part of that collection, for obvious reasons. :) If I can find you even more proof, then I'll gladly show you, but sometimes, the best thing to do is just to sit and think about it.

Thanks, -MS — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissouriSunshine (talk • contribs) 23:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) fansites are not a reliable source. (2) Just because the father of Selena said something, does not make it true. We would need a WP:RS to indicate what he is saying is in fact true and not false. I do support that the album is indeed false/fake, I never once said it was true. However, here at Wikipedia we go with what the sources says, not what fans or the family states - this is an encyclopedia not a fanopedia. Again, please stop attacking me and comment in good faith as I am. I'm agreeing with you and you still are attacking me. Furthermore, I do not know the Quintanilla family nor would I even want to. I am a fan of Selena not her family and this is not a debate about myself, if you have anything to ask just simply calmly ask them on my talk page. Also that rumor started back in the late 90s, when I was just a child. Secondly, in the Joe Nick Patoski book (published in 1996), the album's title is mentioned. I was barely 4 years of age at the time of release. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 00:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question AJona are you saying that you know that the album is fake, but there are no reliable sources for it? If so how do you know it is fake? And why would Selenas father not be a reliable source for his daughters albums? AIRcorn (talk) 04:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I have no WP:RS that states the albums existence or nonexistence, but in my POV I do believe the album was made up by fans back in the 90s. The name "The New Girl in Town" can be found in the Joe Nick Patoski book published back in 1996 and the book I sourced on the article. Well its words against sources with her family. Her husband Chris Perez claims that he is not writing a book about Selena on his facebook page, however [16]. Selena's brother, A.B. Quintanilla III had stated he is not remixing Selena music on his official twitter account, however [17], [18], [19]. Selena's sister Suzette Quintanilla told fans early in the 2000s that there is not a single unreleased Selena song however Puede Ser (2004), Lo Dejo Solo (2007) [20], Feelings (Selena song) (2007). Selena's cousin Kathy Quintanilla also revealed that their family holds numerous unreleased Selena music. Selena's sister is also reluctant when she is asked by news reporters about any sign of unreleased music of her sister... Anyways, I just don't trust her family when it comes down to it. I prefer reliable sources found on the Internet, sad but its true. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 04:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Families can lie, but books can also make mistakes. I don't know, I am not seeing convincing evidence from either side that show that this is real or fake - can't access the books to check them and you have to be careful using fan sites. Besides that I am wondering about its notability, I can find no useful information on the net and if it was only released for two months there may be no significant coverage of it anyway per WP:NALBUMS. I see Selena is a WP:FA and mentions this album so that is encouraging. User:Secret appears to be a major contributor [21] so I will ask him to comment. AIRcorn (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually as Secret is up for adminship I don't feel it is a good time to bother him. It is early days so will see what other editors think first. AIRcorn (talk) 07:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose a merger at best, not a deletion. There's nothing on the net and Secret has the book (Joe Nick Patoski) that I used. He can verify that it is mentioned at the discography page. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 13:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Ok, I can't fully digest the voluminous comments above, so as far as I can tell... Most of the references are from one book by one guy. The album is not available, nor are there any sources, apart from one guy, that say it was released. The song on Amazon says it was released in 2007. Obviously this track was recorded a long time ago, but that doesn't mean a full LP of this name was released. Since, even as the nominator suggests, this album has been an 'urban legend' in the Selena community for so long, I feel it has earned a SHORT mention here. And yes, this is basically a 'delete' vote, with a small variation. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 03:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Pesco. Not too concerned about the fake or not argument, just the lack of sources either way. AIRcorn (talk) 12:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - (Selena Album) = worthy of inclusion in the parallel Pop Culture Compendium attached to the serious encyclopedia known as Wikipedia. Give the people what they want. Carrite (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That rationale doesn't contain one whit of sense. Why would you want an article for something that is quite obviously fake? Tarc (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - However, the album never impacted (never had the songs) on any music chart. I think a merge to Selena albums discography is more suitable. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 02:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whether it is a hoax or some sort of fan-created mix/bootleg, we can't have an article for an album that simply does not exist. Nothing about this album appears in any Selena website that I can find, what does show up are either clones of the Wikipedia article or barebones entries to user-submitted sites. If someone has a credible source other than one guy's questionable book, I'm all ears. Tarc (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note - This was rather unabashedly canvassed at WP:AN. Please take any non-policy-based votes as success of the canvas campaign to keep it. Hasteur (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above deletion debate is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whilst the good faith Keep vote from DGG would have been viable, it appears that the referred club is not the notable one. The remaining Keep votes are not enough. Userfication on request. Black Kite (t) 00:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Ashman

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

Delete. Should be G4 due to previous AFD resulting in delete. However, a couple of administrators are opposed over whether or not this current version is vastly different from the previous. At this time, the sources continue to fail in establishing notability in accordance with the general or topical notability guidelines for filmmakers. The references provided mention the subject either briefly or not at all. No significant coverage in reliable or independent sources. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 08:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I voted delete before and this so-called new version doesn't have much more in it. Flooding the reference section with a bunch of mentions (then don't even use them as a ref) doesn't change notability. I'm also strongly suspecting that the WP:SPA that revived it has an agenda and possibly a sock. Still non-notable and it should have been G4.Niteshift36 (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I feel that the references added satisfy all the criteria needed to justify an inclusion, although I may not have formatted them properly. Since this is the first time I have contributed to an article, I was "gifted" on my talk page with some helpful pages, guidelines and policies. To justify my position: From WP:BIO, The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded".[1] Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular"—although not irrelevant—is secondary. Also from WP:BIO, “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability”. There is significant coverage of this person's work and person, in breadth, if not always in depth and I have included articles with significant coverage that are independent of the subject. From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material". All new references support all information in the article with the exception of a few things that I have cited. In terms of overall style, and by other pages as my example I have not cited every line of text. Sorry if this is redundant for more experienced editors. I am interested in nightlife and its culture and I hope to contribute to many more articles, in what appears to be a dearth of articles in this area. Todayilearned (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)— Todayilearned (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak Keep - I found a plethora of sources about this man: Obeserver , Black Book, New York News, USA Today, Grub Street, and Another Black Book article. Not sure if ALL of them establish him as notable, but the Grub Street article does. --Madison-chan (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Grub Street articles isn't about him. It mentions him as possibly opening something. The place is more the subject of the article.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called "USA Today reference" isn't actually USA Today at all. That's a RSS scrape from eater.com. And is that article about Ashman? No. It's about the fact that he might be opening something. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NY News ref isn;t about Ashman....it mentions Ashman giving some gossip about a more notable person. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - There are sufficent secondary sources (including the sources provided above by Madison-chan) to support a claim of notability. Passes WP:GNG.--Cavarrone (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The sources provided actually fail the GNG, which requires significant coverage about the subject. The sources are not about the subject, but about the venues which he owns or manages. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cind.amuse. No significant improvement over deleted version, just a laundry list of superficial comments and fleeting references. And the article remains a puff/promo piece, with no discussion of the reportedly less savory side of the subject's businesses (which still wouldn't establish notability. Should have been G4'd. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I declined a G4, for considerable material was added, or at least more clearly shown. The clubs he owned are all of them clearly notable, and one at least, studio 54, is famous. The references prove that, and it's enough for notability. The grub Street article at least is clearly a substantial article primarily about him, though I am not familiar with the publication. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He never owned the "real" Studio 54. Long after Studio 54 was shut down and most of the space it occupied was converted into a theatrical venue, he briefly operated a small club in its building that he called Studio 54. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now owning an imitation club, with the same name, is notable? And listing a ton of mentions is apparently notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough to pass WP:GNG. Broodwhich (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)— Broodwhich (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The tripe in the article reminded me of something--I voted delete the first time around, and I see nothing to make me change my mind. Drmies (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedied. There is an MGM guitar, but it's by Delaney and possibly not on the market yet.. Peridon (talk)

MGM Guitar Corporation

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

If this company exists - which it may well not - then it is so obscure as not to pass the general notability guidelines. Shirt58 (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Famous for a Ghost Bass? More like, famous for being a ghost corporation. After an extensive search for variations on the company name (e.g. "MGM Guitars," "MGM Guitar Co," "MGM" "Ghost Bass"), I have found nothing verifying this company's existence. Doesn't meet WP:V, and even if someone were to find a verifying source, I very much doubt the company meets WP:CORP I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No mention anywhere on google, first result is the Wikipedia page. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 13:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 hoax (tagged as such). Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie F. Kennedy

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

Non-notable film lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:NOTFILM. reddogsix (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No facts asserted on the article indicate how it meets WP:FILM notability, nor does a cursory search indicate that such is possible. - Vianello (Talk) 00:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The absence of coverage in reliable secondary sources also means it fails the general notability guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Significance neither asserted nor established. 76.248.149.98 (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a film that claims both a DVD release and a halting of release per reasons of their own copyright violations. Lacks any verifiability. The only thing available about this film, other than Wikipedia, are simple listings in the non-RS pariscine.com Fails WP:NF Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blake ian

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

Does not seem to meet notability guidelines outlined at Wikipedia:Notability (music). EricSerge (talk) 05:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further it would seem albums were released on self-owned non-major label. Combined with a lack of significant media coverage, and reliable sources this article does not seem to meet notability guidelines. Was previously deleted in May 2010 for the same reasons, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blake Ian. EricSerge (talk) 05:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even his IMDB page is less than impressive. Eeekster (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails WP:MUSIC and other criteria of notability. reddogsix (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. A significant number of Reliable sources have been found establishing the subject's notability. Deletion concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP

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

Non-Notable law firm, no coverage, fails both WP:GNG and WP:CORP Mt king ^(edits) 05:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - large, well-known law firm that is often in the news; see [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], etc. Bearian (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lets look at those sources

No.1 - Is a one paragraph on a law website about the firm cutting new staff pay

No.2 - Is a directory profile.

No.3 - "Partner Pleads Not Guilty in DUI" : NOT about the firm.

No.4 - Is a court filing : NOT about the firm.

No.5 - Has one paragraph on Richard Mallory, a partner : NOT about the firm.

No.6 - Has one paragraph on how the firm looked at it's online spending and "was surprised to learn that some types of exposure online were very low-cost (like blogging) while others were extremely expensive (like the various lawyer-rating services.)"

So in no way can these be considered to be significant coverage of the firm. Mt king ^(edits) 23:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'm seeing a good deal of secondary source coverage in research. — Cirt (talk) 16:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind posting them, as I would be more than willing to withdraw if that is the case, as all I can see are mentions and quotes from staff, nothing that addresses the firm directly. Mt king ^(edits) 22:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - promotional article for a run of the mill not noteworthy legal company. Off2riorob (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — one just has to have patience in research to find thousands of secondary sources, for example, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked at most of the first page of thoes, they seam to be reprints (if that is the right word in this digital age) of firm media releases or reports about people going to work there in specialist trade publications. Mt king ^(edits) 05:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They are reasonably large and well-known, especially in Southern California, where the business pages regularly cover the comings and goings of their attorneys and, perhaps more significantly, report on them as one of the more significant firms. I agree that a lot of what comes up in searches is marketing material, but there's also significant independent coverage: for example, a 2009 report on their cuts in associate salaries as setting a trend for the profession[28]; a 2005 report that Anaheim would be hiring them as outside counsel to deal with the NFL[29]; a 1993 report including them as one of the significant SoCal law firms leading a then-popular trend of opening offices in Mexico[30]. There are certainly other law firms out there that have a higher public profile, but I think Allen Matkins gets enough. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note — the sheer number of acknowledgments in scholarly academic journal articles alone is reason enough to Keep. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 14:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Columbia University#Undergraduate admissions and financial aid. Nominator withdrew their deletion argument. (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Jay Scholar

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

Not notable, cannot find more than one source, and editors keep violating NPOV as well as the fact that I do not believe it meets encyclopedic requirements $The Haz talk$ 04:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Columbia_University#Undergraduate_admissions_and_financial_aid. A single undergraduate scholarship with no outside coverage does not merit its own article. It's possible that some of this information can be integrated into this section in the main article on Columbia University. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to a Merge and Redirect. $The Haz talk$ 14:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn by nominator with no dissents from other editors. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Polytely

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

This article was created in 2008, has had 59 edits involving 32 editors, and no references with a no reference tag dated Dec 2008. I did not find any relevant references so feel the article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Otr500 (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Otr500 (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unfortunately polytely appears also to be a term in biology: in invertebrate zoology it means "breeding several times in a lifetime"^[1] while in botany it refers to the presence of flowers.^[2]. However Google Books and Scholar searches reveal sufficiently many hits apparently referring to this definition to suggest notability.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6] Cusop Dingle (talk) 17:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Concept appears to have wide use in theory of biological and other types of systems. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

^ Richard Stephen Kent Barnes (2001). The invertebrates: a synthesis. John Wiley & Sons. p. 338. ISBN 0632047615.
^ Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales. Vol. 91–92. Linnean Society of New South Wales. 1966. p. 24.
^ Joachim Funke (2001). "Dynamic Systems as Tools for Analysing Human Judgement". Thinking and Reasoning. 7 (1): 69–89. doi:10.1080/13546780042000046. SSRN 1630893.
^ Robert J. Sternberg; Peter A. Frensch (1991). Complex problem solving: principles and mechanisms. Routledge. p. 186. ISBN 0805806512.
^ Tijana T. Ivancevic; Bojan Jovanovic; Sasa Jovanovic; Milka Djukic; Natalia Djukic (2011). Paradigm shift for future tennis: the art of tennis physiology, biomechanics, and psychology. Cognitive systems monographs. Vol. 12. Springer Verlag. p. 310. ISBN 978-3642170942.
^ Tilmann Betsch; Susanne Haberstroh (2005). The routines of decision making. Routledge. p. 253. ISBN 0805846131.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Since the serious issue that initiated the deletion request is now moot this article passes the criteria for a "speedy keep" closure (if there are no objections) or as an alternative, "...as a polite request not to waste everyone's time.", a snowball close Otr500 (talk) 10:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Silent Game (band)

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

I suspect that this may be a recreation of deleted content. It looks like an article about this non-notable band was deleted in 2005: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Silent Game. The band still seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Pburka (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources to prove notability. All of the few ghits I saw either go back to the band's various pages or are vanity news pieces. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love It Or Leave It

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

Spectacularly fails WP:NSONGS. The song wasn't even released as a single. Till I Go Home (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tougas Family Farm

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

Notability of this article is in question. –BuickCentury Driver 03:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are some who might complain that this was pounced on minutes after its creation, but I don't see a minimal claim of importance being made here. The article is indeed about a family farm. They grow apples and peaches, and berries of some sort. It's a pick your own orchard. They apparently also have a petting zoo and a playground. They even get local coverage; the Worcester Telegram & Gazette consulted Phyllis Tougas about the berry crop. Phyllis Tougas of Tougas Family Farm in Northboro said berries have been slow in ripening, so the season got off to a late start. ... (Attempting to link the story triggers a spam filter on this page, too.) I don't see this kind of coverage as conferring minimal significance on this business. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD is a stall tactic. If we speedy delete the article, chances are it's going to be reposted and an wheel war could ensue. AFD serves two purposes: to establish a consensus and to make the one who posted the article understand why it should be deleted. –BuickCentury Driver 12:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's really not so helpful--wheel war? Still, I'm closing this as delete. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do as you please. I don't mind the article was deleted, but I feel it's best to use AFD rather then speedy, and then retag again and again every time the article gets reposted. Aside from the time the person put into writing the article it's my way of respecting new editors and making them feel welcome, so they're less likely to resent the deletion and move foreward. –BuickCentury Driver 11:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker Emblem

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

concerns a logo proposed in 2003 and never to my knowledge used by anyone Elinruby (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Let me counter. It is in use, clearly, by many. A quick Google search reveals the hacker emblem to be in use and identified with. Some even, apparently, tattoo it on their bodies. Some examples of its use: http://www.google.ca/search?q=hacker emblem&hl=en&rls=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch I am not suggesting that a Google search result is automatically proof of notability, but the hacker emblem is clearly in use by many. --Ds13 (talk) 02:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

quick note -- two of the three pictures of tattoos are on Eric Raymond's page, ie the person who proposed it. There does appear to be one guy in Florida who has independently tattooed this on his arm. So perhaps I am hasty to say "not anybody" - but this is (possibly) one tattoo, so far...I'll do a count of stores later, though, and see if there's a way to identify who runs them. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something else to consider, as evidence of this emblem being recognized... If you visit cafepress.com or zazzle.com and search for "hacker emblem" and you will see products, by a variety of individuals, emblazoned with this hacker emblem. These may or may not be selling like hotcakes, but this is not a new trend and these products' existence suggests that this emblem communicates something known to a subculture. Since this is not the work of one individual, the claim that this article is vanity or self-publishing (by Eric S. Raymond, for example) isn't true. --Ds13 (talk) 04:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may have a point, kind of. It had not occurred to me that cafepress was evidence of notability. What are the urls of all those images tho? A lot of the ones I just looked at, when you look a bit harder, say look, I found a hacker logo on wikipedia ;) It's kinda meta. Then there are the omnipresent Eric Raymond subpages...funny you should suggest vanity publishing, lol. I suppose as the nominator, I need to take on the responsibility of assessing how many actual independent references to this logo's existence there might be. I guess my question is, if in fact as I suspect people are adopting it as a hacker logo because wikipedia says that is what it is.... what's the notability threshold for deserving an article? Incidentally, I have no particular quarrel with the man, except that he's ancient history, for which he does deserve his due, but claims to speak for communities that have never heard of him. If this logo were in wide use by hackers it would show up at defcon or blackhat or on 2600 imho. So let's not close this discussion *too* quickly. Thanks. Elinruby (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is used in, to choose one example from many, the Singapore hackerspace logo: [31]. Francis Bond (talk) 08:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

that's a good example of independent use. They're active and as a SuperHappyDevHouse spinoff, unaffiliated with Raymond. So now we have *two* independent uses. But that's still just a logo, which may well have been picked because Wikipededia said it was a hacker logo. The hackerspace, yes, seems notable based on participation, though it's a little new. Although -- I don't see an article for *hackerspace.sg* on Wikipedia. But its logo? There is no article about the SuperHappyDevHouse logo, for instance. Nor the logo of the older and more established Hacker Dojo, a group that overlaps the original superhappydevhouse. Go look at hackerspaces.org. There are hundreds of existing and proposed hackerspaces, whose existence is notable. Some of them are well-established and therefore notable. And some of *those* are notable for additional reasons. Noisebridge, to pick an example with which I am not affiliated, has founders who are notable in themselve -- Jacob Appelbaum and Mitch Altman. And I note that there is no article about the Noisebridge logo. Elinruby (talk) 17:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides all the cafepress.com and zazzle.com products using it, here are some additional sightings:

A desktop background graphic. http://aboywithnoname.deviantart.com/art/Hacker-Glider-Logo-wallpaper-208003690

Graffiti in Brazil (photographer identifies it as a hacker logo): http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcogomes/2353373016/

Some kind of business card, maybe: http://www.flickr.com/photos/masterhackers/3479944098/

A poster. http://www.flickr.com/photos/kiuz/4040298247/

Embroidered coasters: http://www.flickr.com/photos/clamoring/3693385080/

Graffiti/sticker: http://www.flickr.com/photos/marcogomes/2137794343/

Tatoo: http://www.flickr.com/photos/samuelhuckins/3357911918/

Tatoo, tagged 'cultura-hacker': http://www.flickr.com/photos/sfl/5435751429/

Tatto (different person, different arm): http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajazevedo/4138406500/

Cloth badge: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelmania_accesorios/5590259720/

On wine bottle label: http://www.flickr.com/photos/robchahin/2675165226/

Stormhoek Wines: using the logo in their header and an article on wine hacking: http://www.stormhoek.com/blog/index.php/2006/09/06/the-culture-of-hacking/

Bumper stickers: http://www.select2gether.com/shopping/advsearch/-/-/hacker emblem bumper sticker/0

I suggest that this is all very small scale and amateur use, but worldwide use of the symbol. --Ds13 (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the help. I have been looking at shops off and on. I think that some of the ones I was looking at are a kind of commercial version of a screen-scraper, whose owners will be happy to sell you any merchandise you like with any logo you like that will not get them sued. I can't quite say that for a fact yet, however. Possibly we can go at this another way, and avoid a lot of tedious trawling for both of us. Search results are not proof of notability, I hear. You can google my user name and get thousands of results. At least on the first 4-5 pages, all the results except the stores are in fact me. If you take the real name, you get thousands more, most of which are also me. This does not make me notable, nor do I think it should. Your thoughts? Elinruby (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My position on this is fairly simple. The emblem in question is an easily verified creation of a very notable person. In the last 8 years or so, it has come into minor, but widespread and easily documented use. Commercial, artistic, amateur, etc. Some of the publicity you read about the emblem is controversy: it is not universally liked or accepted, even in concept. Nevertheless, even this talk directed at the emblem is verifiable. Additionally, the actual form of the emblem (the glider) is, itself, notable with its own article. Together, these properties are enough for me to hold a "keep" position in this discussion. --Ds13 (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the summary, which may keep me from having to examine a whole bunch of merchandising urls. I still think the article should be deleted, or, now that you mention it, possibly merged to become a section of the glider article.

The separate article for this logo deals with its proposal by one individual who is notable in part for notoriously inserting himself into discussions and wikipedia articles that only peripherally concern him. Wikipedia should not be used for self-aggrandizement. The name-dropping policy says that association with one individual is not enough to demonstrate notability, in any event.
It's a logo. Most logos do not have wikipedia articles. Wikipedia does not even seem to entertain the notion that a logo can be notable since it has no criteria for logo notability. It does seem to have been incorporated into the hackerspace.sg logo, but neither that group nor that logo has a separate page, nor do the logos of other arguably more notable groups such as Noisebridge.
This "hacker emblem" has not been shown to be in use by actual hackers, with the exception of one group in Singapore which itself does not have a wikipedia page, though possibly it should. I say the emblem is not in use, based on its absence from the RSA conference and DEFCON, even at the level of the t-shirts of participants. If anyone is buying the merchandise, they aren't attending two of the most important network security conferences. I can't speak for Black Hat, but its attendees overlap considerably with defcon's.
Hacktivists such as the Sunlight Foundation and Hack for America do not use it. Anonymous, which may feel it meets the hacker description, does not seem to use it.
The proof of notability offered here is a search result best summarized by saying that some people are willing to make money using the emblem. Some of the links provided here to this effect (zazzle, the trash can, and one of the tattoos) appear on the page of the emblem's proposer. He disclaims affiliation with them but adds that their receipts go to the EFF, a claim not made on the pages in question. If he is right about that how can he know without any affiliation with them?
That leaves one or two tattoos, a trashcan, and a hackerspace logo as proof of notability.
All of the secondary sources that concern the logo say that Raymond has proposed it. There is a complete absence of secondary sources that say it's been adopted.

That said, I will be quiet for a while and see if anyone else wants to talk ;) Elinruby (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, noteworthy piece of historical Internet culture. — Cirt (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable logo in the hacker/Internet culture. At worst, merge into Glider (Conway's Life). --Cyclopia ^talk 14:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable logo in the hacker/Internet culture. At worst, merge into Glider (Conway's Life). Snori (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge instead? There seems to be a consensus against my proposal. I am mostly an inclusionist myself, so I understand the impulse. I feel it's misapplied here, but... I will accept the consensus. I have never done this before so I am not certain how to proceed. Does the proposal stay open a certain length of time? If I want to suggest we merge instead, which I feel would suffice to address my concerns, does this require a separate proposal? Thank you for any answers. Elinruby (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment It appears that late in this debate there was a possible emerging consensus for merging the article. Relisting to generate a clearer consensus on a possible merger. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swamp-ska

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

Notability of this article is in question. It is a one-line stub about a style of music. –BuickCentury Driver 03:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Although there appears to be a band with this name, I was unable to find any online sources or books verifying this genre, let alone its notability. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As nominator, I'd suggest a redirect to Ska. –BuickCentury Driver 09:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan M. Lance

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

ORTS not withstanding, no indication that this person meets WP:GNG / WP:BIO. Maybe even CSD A7 or CSD G11. Mt king ^(edits) 03:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator beat me to it—unable to find indication of notability despite good faith media searches. ^Bongo_matic 10:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - when and if his company spins off, he may become notable. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. As noted, we might end up revisiting this if the company does well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, criterion G7, article withdrawn by the creator and sole contributor. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LEGO (2014)

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

Contested PROD. concern = Film not yet in production. Eeekster (talk) 02:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that the content currently in the article is not suitable for merging. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Bikers of Oz

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

No real world notability, no sources found. Mattg82 (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge if reliable sources are found to Oz (TV series), and if not, delete. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:06, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable gang from a not-very-notable TV show. Delete. --Madison-chan (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Oz (TV series) if sources can be found.--Stvfetterly (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Water Technologies

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

Article fails to demonstrate notability per WP:CORP, main contributors are a blocked account with ties to the subject and a new account whose name is listed on AWT's web site. Dismas|^(talk) 01:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. With all information taken in the light most favorable to the subject, here's no claim as to notability at all. Research turns up very little, and shows the group fails WP:BASIC requirements of significant coverage by third parties. JFHJr (㊟) 02:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Materialscientist (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clover Food Lab

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

Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. Referenced articles are hardly significant in nature and only mention company in passing. reddogsix (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I can't make out any claim to notability here, even in the subject's most favorable light. It mostly receives passing coverage in a single source, the Boston Globe. Not only is its coverage insignificant, it's not from multiple reliable sources. Research aside, the article is currently supported by passing mentions in news stories, a non-notable civic award, and a couple of blogs. JFHJr (㊟) 01:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete — Article fails claim of notability, and almost seems just too promotional. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 01:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - With revisions, article claims better notability. Could be broken into sections though, appropriately tagged. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 02:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've expanded the article and added several more independent, reliable sources that give more exclusive and in-depth coverage to the subject. The sources I've encountered are virtually invariably favorable in their coverage of the subject. There are some annoyances covered in the Boston Globe article here that I will try to incorporate soon. Emw (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article to include mention of the annoyances. Hopefully this along with the expanded content that isn't accolades address concerns that the article seems too promotional. Emw (talk) 23:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (post revamp) – Great work on the sources. They're much better, though some sources are still simply passing mention. For example, 1) just because it was a WSJ writer that called it among the top ten food trucks doesn't mean it's substantial or even notable coverage (is this some kind of noteworthy mention? it's certainly not in-depth) [32]; 2) the opinion of the Boston mayor really isn't important or encyclopedic, and it definitely doesn't help the company WP:INHERIT notability [33] (this cite is used twice, however it's a passing mention in total); 3) a local award simply isn't supported by this [34] is neither noteworthy nor in-depth coverage; 4) another shared local award by a magazine is not notable in the slightest, and the coverage is not in-depth at any rate [35]. I'm still convinced this subject fails WP:COMPANY even with the added support because it's still not significant. And it does still seem promotional. At any rate, I wasn't going on the existing coverage offered in the article, I did my due diligence elsewhere also. JFHJr (㊟) 00:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the in-depth coverage of Clover Food Lab in "Everything will be different tomorrow" in Technology Review, "An experiment in making better food" in The Boston Globe, and "Because you can’t eat architecture" from the Boston Society of Architects is enough to clearly meet the notability criteria. Those sources -- which have been cited in the article -- seem like a clear example of multiple independent, reliable sources giving significant coverage of the subject. The sources you've enumerated critiques of are not being used as the foundation of the article's claim to notability, so invoking WP:CORPDEPTH doesn't seem quite valid or relevant here to me. Rather, those sources are used for supplementary detail that I think makes sense to include given the article's scope and subject area. Emw (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - nice rewrite with many sources to demonstrate notability. Passes wp:gng. It still needs some work on its promotional tone, though, but that is an addressable issue. Chris (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how having a paragraph that mentions various accolades for the subject could give the impression that the article is promotional at a glance, but these accolades are all reliably sourced. Other than that I don't see anything that could raise legitimate flags about the article being generally promotional in tone, but maybe I'm wrong here. I've added some more negative coverage with this edit. On the whole I think the article tends to be slightly less favorable towards the subject than the weight of coverage in reliable sources. Could you specify how/where the article seems non-neutral? Thanks for the feedback, Emw (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think I was a bit mistaken here. Especially after the edit you linked to, the article is well-sourced and doesn't go beyond the facts in order to stress certain viewpoints. Chris (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It easily meets the standards for inclusion after the rewrite, also The Boston Meetup likes it (though that isn't a keep reason). --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A consumer business that's apparently attracted sufficient notice as a feature of local culture. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Richard Stephen Kent Barnes (2001). The invertebrates: a synthesis. John Wiley & Sons. p. 338. ISBN 0632047615.

[2] Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales. Vol. 91–92. Linnean Society of New South Wales. 1966. p. 24.

[3] Joachim Funke (2001). "Dynamic Systems as Tools for Analysing Human Judgement". Thinking and Reasoning. 7 (1): 69–89. doi:10.1080/13546780042000046. SSRN 1630893.

[4] Robert J. Sternberg; Peter A. Frensch (1991). Complex problem solving: principles and mechanisms. Routledge. p. 186. ISBN 0805806512.

[5] Tijana T. Ivancevic; Bojan Jovanovic; Sasa Jovanovic; Milka Djukic; Natalia Djukic (2011). Paradigm shift for future tennis: the art of tennis physiology, biomechanics, and psychology. Cognitive systems monographs. Vol. 12. Springer Verlag. p. 310. ISBN 978-3642170942.

[6] Tilmann Betsch; Susanne Haberstroh (2005). The routines of decision making. Routledge. p. 253. ISBN 0805846131.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]