< 30 January | 1 February > |
---|
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy keep, nomination was made by sock of banned user. Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of awards and nominations received by Evanescence
- List of awards and nominations received by Evanescence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Speedy Close - bad faith nomination.--blue520 15:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trey A. Corrales
- Trey A. Corrales (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:BLP1E and WP:PERPETRATOR, this is not a notable killer. His co-accused's article is already at AfD. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- --RrburkeekrubrR 14:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In my opinion, this barely even meets BLP1E... (meaning I don't even feel this person is notable for the single event). JBsupreme (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article said he was even aqquited for everything. So I agree, delete. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tha Grustle
- Tha Grustle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
An unreleased album that isn't reliably sourced for a release date, track list. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. List of "confirmed" tracks is unsourced. List of "possible" tracks (which is longer) is unsourced. The only thing reliably sourced, by a single source, is the title. As such, if fails WP:NALBUMS and WP:CRYSTAL. Runs afoul of WP:HAMMER too. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, the author is indef blocked for continually adding false info to articles. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Armbrust Talk Contribs 02:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Alan - talk 23:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus (default keep). Non-admin closure. Swarm(Talk) 22:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huggle, Sweden
- Huggle, Sweden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Once-sentence, unnotable, no refrences, an orphan. Belugaboy535136 contribs 22:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunate Keep I agree that it shouldn't be considered notable, but WP policies say that any populated city/town/village is automatically considered notable. TJ Spyke 23:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Strong delete At a minimum, it has to be established that a populated place be considered its own separate entity. A county road with houses upon it would be a populated place, but not something recognized as its own separate entity. In Sweden, as in the United States, there is data that is drawn from separately designated places. There is no evidence that this is anything that would qualify this as its own separate "populated place", let alone as a city, town or village. The only link in the article is to Google maps, and this is clearly a couple of farms -- not even a neighborhood -- near Östervåla, which is a village of 1,570 inhabitants. The reason that we have information about Östervåla is the aforementioned census information from Sweden, and that source has no mention of "Huggle". As with many such articles, I suspect that this a case of someone writing about a place with an amusing name. Mandsford (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable area of Sweden...doesn't even deserve to be called a town. Would anyone like to know why this article was created? It was created by user:Gurch, the creator of...you guessed it, Huggle, a great anti-vandalism tool. Obviously, the fact that it has the same name as a tool is not notable...so, again, delete. The Arbiter★★★ 23:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-Oh, how I wish I tagged it for speedy deletion! Belugaboy535136 contribs 23:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Places. All towns and villages are notable. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per WP:DEFACTO as populated places are inherently notable, but needs to be expanded, an example source would be this. fetchcomms☛ 01:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FallingRain.com does not limit itself to officially recognized (i.e., as a location in a national census) communities. It's a wonderful service, but when you run your own hometown and then look at the fallingrain.com description of nearby localities, you'll see that most of them are not something that you and your neighbors would never refer to as a "town". An apartment building is a "populated place", but that doesn't mean that it's a community. I'm all in favor of the right to an article for actual incorporated cities and towns, as well as unincorporated communities that have their own post office, but we have to make sure that the inherent right of notability for populated places doesn't get abused-- which appears to be the case here. Mandsford (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Can find no reliable sources to establish the existence of this as a definable settlement. (That Fallingrain site does not seem to meet the requirements and may indeed be dependent on the WP article.) Unless something authoritative can be cited, this fails WP:V. Deor (talk) 02:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to a lack of reliable sources. Reyk YO! 02:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Here is the weather in Huggle: http://www.vackertvader.se/huggle Here are more references from the .se geographic top-level domain to Huggle: http://www.google.com/search?q=Huggle+site%3Ase&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGLL_en --Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment. And here are four references to Huggle from the website of Heby municipality, which includes Huggle: http://www.google.com/search?q=Huggle+site%3Aheby.se&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGLL_en Huggle is real. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you interpret or translate them for us? When I search for the word "Huggle" in the first hit, I get no result; and a similar search in the other hits produces results that I'm unable to relate to the concept of verifiabilty. Deor (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the pages from Heby municipality, http://www.heby.se/index.php3?use=fortroende&cmd=showperson&id=173&lang=1&s_tpl=print is the page for a municipal council member who lives in Huggle Östervåla sockennämnd 1848-1856.pdf AND Östervåla kommunalstämmoprotokoll 1863 till 1882.pdf are transcriptions of minute books with details such as "The parish committee members elected until the year 1850:" and their addresses - some are in Huggle, meaning that Huggle existsed in 1850. del5.pdf has a reference to Huggle ("014 Holvarbo - Huggle - By (I)") in a table at the bottom of page 4 (folio page 85). http://www.booli.se/salda/villa/huggle/327768/ lists the price (and the price per square meter) of a house in Huggle. http://www.holfve.se/brev.htm lists Anders Mattsson, born in Huggle in 1745. http://www.unc.se/foretag/visax.php3?id=1213177 is someone's address in Huggle. So there is plenty of evidence that Huggle is a long-established settlement, closely connected with Östervåla - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- An apartment building is populated, but that doesn't mean it's notable.Belugaboy535136 contribs 12:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of the pages from Heby municipality, http://www.heby.se/index.php3?use=fortroende&cmd=showperson&id=173&lang=1&s_tpl=print is the page for a municipal council member who lives in Huggle Östervåla sockennämnd 1848-1856.pdf AND Östervåla kommunalstämmoprotokoll 1863 till 1882.pdf are transcriptions of minute books with details such as "The parish committee members elected until the year 1850:" and their addresses - some are in Huggle, meaning that Huggle existsed in 1850. del5.pdf has a reference to Huggle ("014 Holvarbo - Huggle - By (I)") in a table at the bottom of page 4 (folio page 85). http://www.booli.se/salda/villa/huggle/327768/ lists the price (and the price per square meter) of a house in Huggle. http://www.holfve.se/brev.htm lists Anders Mattsson, born in Huggle in 1745. http://www.unc.se/foretag/visax.php3?id=1213177 is someone's address in Huggle. So there is plenty of evidence that Huggle is a long-established settlement, closely connected with Östervåla - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you interpret or translate them for us? When I search for the word "Huggle" in the first hit, I get no result; and a similar search in the other hits produces results that I'm unable to relate to the concept of verifiabilty. Deor (talk) 02:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless reliable sources can be found documenting this place. Our common outcomes do not override essential content policies such as WP:V. ThemFromSpace 13:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as noted above for common outcomes. However, this may be more of a hamlet, which may be dificult to verify, and thus could be merged and redirected into Heby Municipality. Bearian (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete It's not on the List of urban areas in Sweden which includes all geographically separate localities of 200 people or more. It's a "name on a map" that seems to cover about 3-5 farms, judging from satellite photos such as this Eniro map (zoom in a little from standard view). I guess it is used as a name in the property register for these few farms; the same goes for all the other dozens of names that you see on the map surrounding Östervåla, they are also not separate localities but likely property names associated with a few farms each. Huggle is used as a postal adress at "street" level within Östervåla, it doesn't have the status as a separate postal "village". (NN, Huggle XXX, SE-740 46 Östervåla, Sweden if anyone wants to send a letter.) Tomas e (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Geographic articles are an important part of Wikipedia, and are almost inherintly notable. More importantly per WP:5P, "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." It is established that this place does exist, and thats good enough for me. --Marcusmax(speak) 23:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- !vote : (this is not a vote, I do not know the policy for tiny places, so I'm not sure if a place is considered notable) But all the talk above that we need RS and V to prove 'the existence of this as a definable settlement' made me try to find some sources, these sources are NOT sources to put in the article, it is not sources that prove notability, but they should prove that it is not a made up place, and they prove that the municipal recognize the place. So Huggle is a place in Sweden, there is enough RS (in Swedish) to prove that, it is small if not VERY small place! Should it be described in Wikipedia? I do not know:
- [1] from a government? entity that proves at least that someone in one of their working groups lives there
- [2] , [3] a overview plan for use of territory from the Heby Municipality that states that huggle is a large unused area. --Stefan talk 06:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting, so by "place" is Huggle a municipality like a town or a village, or is it just a local name for an area of land? The former would warrant an article but probably not the latter. Is there a relevant WikiProject to bring this up at? Editors who are familiar with Sweden might be of some assistance. ThemFromSpace 11:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See Hegvalds comment below, it is NOT a municipality, as I stated Heby Municipality is the municipality that Huggle is part of, in Swedish it is a sv:by. I did not want to call it village since I thought by and village was not really the same, that is why I called it place (that was neutral enough), Hegvald did a good job of explaining what I kind of guessed but did not know, thanks. --Stefan talk 00:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Historically speaking, Huggle is a by, which is a historic division on a sub-parish level, consisting of a few farms. "Hamlet" may be the closest English equivalent. (By can also be translated "village", but a by in Sweden is usually nothing like an English or continental European village.) Today, it is just an address. According to http://www.ratsit.se, there are currently 22 people above the age of 18 living in Huggle. --Hegvald (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Eastmain. Lets all move there. JBsupreme (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not one source has convinced me that this is a separate geographical place such as a village. Wikipedia is based on verifiability and this so far has not been verified. All links given above that I have followed fail to show this. That Huggle is real is not the point, unless we have references that show for certain it is a separate inhabited place it fails any claim of notability. If it can be shown that it is a separate "Hamlet" then fine but I don't think this has been done yet including the link Hegvald has given which shows nothing. Polargeo (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The link shows exactly what I claimed it would show (once you insert the right search term, obviously): that there are now 22 adult people with the address Huggle. Not sure what your point is. Would Huggle, with 22 adult inhabitants, suddenly turn "notable" if there was a source saying that it is, indeed, a separately defined place of a certain type? --Hegvald (talk) 16:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep real place=notable WP:PILLARS and WP:DEFACTO. Why do people want to keep dumbing down the encyclopedia. Has the nominator read the 5 Pillars? Let me quote the opening line of the 1st pillar: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (emphasis added) perhaps someone is missing something... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that the key word in that first pillar is "elements". The policies that have evolved over the years guide which elements of an encyclopedia, almanac or gazetteer automatically merit their own article and which ones would be open to debate, hence the concept that "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed". All of us, whether we argue for a keep or a delete, have our opinions about what is improving or "dumbing down" an encyclopedia. Although it's debatable as to whether Huggle would be notable now, the Swedish census information that was provided by Eastmain indicates that this would have been considered notable in the 19th century, and notability does not expire. Mandsford (talk) 13:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep looks notable, can be expanded with sources provided above. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Since the sources above seem to establish that this is a real, established community (though it would help if they were in the article), it should be kept per the general rule for community articles. As far as the "separate place" thing goes, the fact that this has been verified as a named community should be enough, as I don't think Sweden has an equivalent to the Geographic Names Information System for tracking the Swedish equivalent of unincorporated communities/hamlets (which are considered notable and which this pretty much is). TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 05:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep plenty of secondary reviews (WP:NACD) CTJF83 chat 19:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Catch Me If You Can (album)
- Catch Me If You Can (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non-notable album; unencyclopaedic Rapido (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Per [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10]. Joe Chill (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see lots of reviews yes. But do lots of reviews make a record eligible for entry on Wikipedia? Currently the article is part-review, part-"how the video was made", and part-tracklisting; none of it sourced. The album made the top 100 for a single week. What else to say about the album except it exists? Rapido (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The reviews demonstrate that the album garnered significant coverage. Along with its appearance in teh charts (albeit for a single week) this ensures the album passes the guideline for inclusion. The article needs work thats all. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Obvious keep given coverage and chart placing.--Michig (talk) 07:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 17:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: unless those who want to keep it wish to expand it Alan - talk 23:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A need for expansion isn't a good reason for deletion...Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. although this should not prevent a later redirect if a conensus for such later emerges on the talk page Scott Mac (Doc) 21:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alejandro (song)
- Alejandro (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The reason for this AFD discussion is because a few editors redirect the page claiming it is not notable. The relevant notabilty is found in WP:NSONG, this song has charted in the Official UK charts. SunCreator (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Correct me if I'm wrong, but your "rationale" for deletion sounds like a reason for keeping it. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well indeed. Some editors think it's okay to redirect. Hence the reason to have an AFD to get WP:CONSENSUS about notability one way or the other. SunCreator (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect A clear redirect of this unnecessary article to the The Fame Monster. There's no background info, an unreliable source for supporting a claim and basically nothing that The Fame Monster doesnot have. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The The Fame Monster does not have CHART positions or structure of article. Of course you could merge any two articles together, but there would be no logic in doing so. You are correct that The Sun (newspaper) is a questionable source despite being the tenth biggest(by circularion) newspaper in the world, but what it says is not a factor to determine notability. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Although it doesn't have a release date planned yet, the song is going to have a video and it has charted. Alecsdaniel (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Fame Monster, for now. "Will" be released and "will" have a video is not enough to warrant a separate article. Seems it only appeared on the charts during one week? Nymf talk/contr. 14:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 17:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Yeah, I know that the article current meets with WP:SONGS but let's just ignore all rules for a second and see this issue with clarity: what's the point of having a whole article to just show that this song was a Top 75 in the U.K. when her discography page already does this job? Redundant much? Sparks Fly 18:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Sensible comment. I don't think this is a case or ignore all rules myself however. Looking at the article how it stands now, it's quite presentable. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was anxiously waiting for you to reply my argument. Quite presentable? Well, that's in fact a case of opinion of view. Not trying to be rude or something, but to me, you just created a music and lyrics section and thrown one unreliable source for it. [11]; put three random reviews to the song which could be easily merged to The Fame Monster (Two of which are not exactly reviewing the song and also are/could be presented into the album critical reception) The live performances section also isn't needed since it's only one (technically) and it already is in the Monster Ball Tour article.
- See? I'm just trying to see what's the point of this article if it doesn't have a worth background section, and every single thing here can be merged somewhere without a problem. Sparks Fly 23:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- The edit you refer to was made by IP 71.93.182.103. Be more careful before accusing me.
- The reason why a seperate article makes sense, is both structure and content. The structure allows for a logical progression and a central place to find information about the song. Content wise, placing it elsewhere creates problems of it being removed because it's not relevant to the other article. You could create a Alejandro section in the The Fame Monster article, but it will be an out of place looking section added to the bottom(?) that would make other editors want to remove it.
- If you don't believe the last point, please make a start by putting the music sample into the The Fame Monster article and see how it goes.
- WP:SIZERULE applies. How about you initiate a discussion on Talk:The_Fame_Monster and see if other editors are happy to split the article in two. As an active phone editor I'll be happy to support a split.
- The Policy says best practice is to use WP:NSONGS to determine if a seperate article is notable. You think it's not a problem to merge elsewhere, let me ask you, how is it a problem to have it as a seperate article?
- SunCreator (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- Comment - Sensible comment. I don't think this is a case or ignore all rules myself however. Looking at the article how it stands now, it's quite presentable. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectis approproiate, as opposed to keep, because of WP:NSONGS, please read the third sentence in the third paragraph. "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". To assume that it will grow beyond its present state is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. This information should be merged and redirected to The Fame Monster. J04n(talk page) 18:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I read that third sentence. Think about what you said 'unlikely ever to grow' does not apply here, we are not talking about some song from 30 years ago with no new information which that wording is intended for; this is as yet unreleased single on the currently most popular(by Google hits, google news, wikipedia page views etc) artists in the world. To contend that this article is 'unlikely ever to grow' is a fantasy. Indeed, there is lots that can be said already and some editors start to add it but it gets removed as they awaiting WP:RS, not blogs etc. If that was not the case you would see an article like fr:Alejandro_(Lady_Gaga) already. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep We already know that this will be released as a single, so why should we redirect it when we'll just have to make it again? That seems a little pointless to me. Besides, more information will be found as the weeks and months go by, and more people will continue to make pages like this. I don't see a valid reason to delete it. Sure, there isn't too much information, but it isn't like Wikipedia absolutely has to have every article be huge. Look at all the others on Wikipedia. The bottom line is, even though there isn't much information now, more will come in the near future. The page will expand in time. Even if you delete this page, others will create more and we'll have discussions like this one again. Why don't we just leave it alone? Weaselpie (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First, your point is simple the best definition of what is WP:CRYSTAL. Take a look at this and see if what you brought is still valid. And second, who are we? There's no current information about this being single, and even if this is in fact a single, it's still not enough for it's own page, being a single doesn't warrant that. Third, if the consensus of this page will be delete/redirect, people could create the article 100x and we would delete all these times, we just need to know what do do. I won't consider this last as one of your points but still. Sparks Fly 00:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:FANCRUFT is a serious issue here. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That's why we have notability critera to determine the difference. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Once in a full moon"? I am certainly not that kind of person. I have made many contributions to Wikipedia in my time as a member. And I'm not just doing this to be stubborn. Almost every day I am seeing new news posts about how Lady GaGa wants to cast Lara Stone in her music video for Alejandro (most came from various European newspapers, but some also came from American ones). I feel that there is no reason to delete this page because a) it will just end up being a waste of time for the people who worked on it and b) there is a very likely chance that it will end up being a single. You'll just waste your time deleting it while others make more. And, eventually, if it is released, it will have been a mistake to have deleted it in the first place. Why should this page about Alejandro, a likely candidate to be a single, be deleted when Ke$ha's song, Blah Blah Blah, hasn't even been released at all? If this is because the page doesn't have much information, it's like I said before: more info will come in time. Again, I see no reason to delete the page. By the way - "Once in a full moon" should be "once in a blue moon". A full moon comes around once a month, right? Sounds pretty frequent if you ask me. Weaselpie (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:FANCRUFT is a serious issue here. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not that it has anything to do with the topic at all, but once in a full moon is exactly what I was referring to. People who pop up once a month to do 2-3 edits. Besides, we aren't suggesting that the page be deleted; we are suggesting that it should be redirected. That way it can be restored when/if it becomes notable. As for your comment about casting and that other article supposedly justifying this article, see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and Wikipedia:Speculation. Nymf talk/contr. 02:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The song was released as a promotional single and has charted in at least one area. How about instead of deleting the article, we try to improve it? Tikkuy (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Chart information. Article structure. Information on the song. None of which you would want in The Fame Monster. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This song was released as a promotional single.. link christmas tree, dance in the dark and beautiful, dirty, rich.--Aaa16 (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You two provided the same point, but I still don't find it worth. The song was never used as a official promotional single; it went only for iTunes before the whole album and still, this is a "fan-known thing", there's no source backing it as a single to promote the album. Sparks Fly 21:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I agree with previous posts that it will expand in the future, which will mean it is 'permitted' to stay. EryZ (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand? See my post above, which clearly mentions that all info found about the song is already preesnt in The Fame Monster. I don't see any need to have two pages containing the same information. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no info about the structure, for example. Alecsdaniel (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want structure info, then why don't you read what the people write and research instead of automatically deleting it and saying that people can't come up with any reasons? Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia where users add information and administrators/other members read what is written and decide whether it is good to keep or must be deleted. Weaselpie (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no info about the structure, for example. Alecsdaniel (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand? See my post above, which clearly mentions that all info found about the song is already preesnt in The Fame Monster. I don't see any need to have two pages containing the same information. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect If it becomes notable after its release, the article can be recreated, for now, it's WP:CRYSTAL and not very notable Alan - talk 23:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - In what way do you consider it doesn't meet WP:NSONG. It has charted in the UK charts and I just found out it charted in the Hungarina charts also. SunCreator (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It has charted in two territories therefore it meets notability guidlines. It doesn't have to be in the singles chronology but since it's charted it should have it's own page the same as Beautiful, Dirty Rich or Wait Your Turn from Rihanna. Jayy008 (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Charting doesnot substantiate that an article should have project space. The other articles you pointed have more than enough information to properly construct even a GA quality content. This one, sadly is just WP:CRYSTAL. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I Disagree, I wasn't basing it on WP:CRYSTAL. I was basing it on meeting notability guidlines. Jayy008 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Never have I seen it argued at AFD that an article should be of GA quality before! Wikipedia has no such criteria. We do not delete article below GA standard. Wikipedia is work in progress; see WP:NOTDONE. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/merge, almost every song from The Fame Monster has charted so should we have a page for each one? Same with Beyonce's I Am Sasha Fierce. This is become a pointless argument. It is a breach of WP:crystal. The info could easily be contained on the album's page. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- where is it actually mentioned that this song is a single? Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm glad you both brought that up, as it's a common misconception. WP:NSONG does not say it has to be a released single or have a released video. WP:NSONG does say however, the song has to chart - which this song has. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment that is a silly pointless comment because BPI and RIAA have said that due to the growth in sales from places like AMazon and iTunes more and more album songs are being sold individually without being released fully as singles. This could mean that eventually we could have pages for every song on an album whether its released or not. there is not enough information here to warrant its own page. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Take a look at this graph. It's the average number of new tracks each week in the UK Singles Chart. In the 1994-2005 period before downloads the average was around 18 per week. Today it is about 9; about half of what it was before downloads. Meaning that wikipedia will create much less song articles since the download era then it did before. SunCreator (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect/Merge. as per above arguements. Not all singles are notable, guidelines say most may be, it doesn't say all are. Alan - talk 00:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The exception being those where is nothing there will ever be anything to write about. That does not apply here. Consider fr:Alejandro (Lady Gaga) for starters. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Alejandro has charted in the top 5 in hungary! it should be kept as it is clearly a huge hit there and has met more success than most of her songs there. It is also highly likely to be released as a single. For the time it should be kept as it is a highly charting song by Lady Gaga, but when/if it is released as a single, there will be a strong argument to keep it anyway.
- Redirect - Even if the song has charted in the top 5 in Hungray, that virtually means nothing for basis in an article. Re-establish article when there is more notability, the single has been confirmed, etc. Candyo32 (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The chart means everything, it's the agreed criteria for whether a song is notable or not. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but as I said before, what's the point of a whole article just to show that the song hit Top 75 in the U.K. when her discography page already does it? Just ignore this notability rule essay that you point for a second and think. Sparks Fly 13:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's not just the Charts. I highlighted that because it's the information that makes the article notable. There is other information, some of which I added today on the critical reception of the single. Wikipedia is a work in progress so don't expect it all done. Also this article exceeds a stub, wikipedia has 3,186,672 articles of which at least 1,444,438 are stubs. Go get argeement to delete them all and then I'd review your point. SunCreator (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, but as I said before, what's the point of a whole article just to show that the song hit Top 75 in the U.K. when her discography page already does it? Just ignore this notability rule essay that you point for a second and think. Sparks Fly 13:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The chart means everything, it's the agreed criteria for whether a song is notable or not. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Some interesting discussion and some confused editors. The song having charted in two national charts meets the notability of WP:NSONG. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Erhm... I do think that you can provide your opinion here moreover a keep argument, since you were the one who nominated the article for delete. (?) Sparks Fly 14:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- I created this AFD to get discussion. I was open and hopefully there was some logical reason that a few editors redirect this article. I did not say delete or keep, so necessary to clarify my position having heard the opinions of others.
- AFD is a discussion not a WP:!VOTE so frankly saying I cannot 'provide your opinion' is silly. SunCreator (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you nominate an article for deletion, that presumably means that you are going to present a argument to delete the article. So, when you came here to say that you want to keep the article seemed unfamiliar. If you wanted to get a consensus for keeping the article you should have stuck to the talk page. Sparks Fly 20:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That would of been ideal. But I could not 'stick to the talk page' as the article(and talk) was salted and uneditable. An admin agreed to unsalt if it went to Afd. SunCreator (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Fame Monster. As was pointed out, most of the information is covered at that article, information about this song charting can be covered there if it is not already present, and there is not enough information. Yes, this meets WP:NSONGS by having charted on two national music charts, but that policy also states, "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." We can't just make an article for every song that's ever charted simply because it charted, there has to be sufficient information, and this simply just doesn't have enough. –Chase (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two points on 'unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs' :
- It's is wild speculation to assume this article is not ever going to grow. Plenty of things I already know to add to it. It's not some song from the 1940 or something.
- Stub. On the issue of stubs, you are assuming it's not beyond a stub already. I contend it's past that point, no one has labelled it a stub. I asked over at Stub sorting if it was a stub. I got the clear reply No, that's far beyond a stub, in my opinion. — Martin
- Two points on 'unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs' :
- SunCreator (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment, it not as if this information couldn't be included on the album's page until there is clearer indication that this is a single. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – it is also wild speculation to assume that this article will grow. It's not a single, it's not confirmed to be a single, so until it is confirmed as a single or it receives a substantial amount of coverage for whatever reason, we should assume it will likely not grow. Also, as Sparks Fly pointed out, it's beyond ridiculous to have a page with information that is conveyed/could be conveyed at other, larger articles just because its subject charted as a non-single. Please note that WP:NSONGS states that charting probably makes a song notable. There is not enough information about it to be notable at this point. –Chase (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It seems after research that there is some info for the background of the article. I will try to add them and let's see. Also, I forgot that the song is extensively being performed at The Monster Ball Tour. Hence it does pass WP:NSONGS. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Per WP:NSONGS, an independent article is "only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". I'm not terribly convinced that the sources provide in-depth coverage for the song, but I do believe the article now meets the "reasonably detailed" standard. Also, songs that have charted are "probably notable" (though not inherently notable). Taking all factors into account, I support keeping as a separate article. Gongshow Talk 05:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – I would like to note that the information worth keeping—songwriting information, performance of song on tour, chart positions, and critical reception—could all be easily discussed in the main article, The Fame Monster. The "limited release" claim is unsourced, the music video claim has sources (Digital Spy, The Sun) that are not notable, and the track listing is plain false information since it hasn't even been released as a single. There is no reason why this shouldn't be merged. –Chase (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete both per WP:SNOW. Both articles salted. –MuZemike 01:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Azulon Dolmayan
- Azulon Dolmayan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page has been A7'd twice in the past three days. Now it appears to claim he was in Harry Potter, although there's no entry for this individual on IMDB. Also a COI. Shadowjams (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm adding Azulon Dolmayan Album to this AfD as well. Shadowjams (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete both - no IMDB means that they have not appeared in anything yet. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: switched to Speedy Delete after creator added that Dolmayan is one of the richest teenagers in the world. - Speedy delete and salt. The acting claims are an obvious hoax (see Google, for instance), and other than that he has no claim to notability. Being nothing more than an aspiring singer who hopes to release an album in the future is speediable, and salt is warranted due to repeated recreation and sockpuppetry. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, hoax. Hairhorn (talk) 02:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Obvious hoax, but pretty funny all the same. Evalpor (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and salt. Hoax. Big time. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - the user who created these two (hoax) articles has been blocked indef for sockpuppetry. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Local Ghost Haunts
- Local Ghost Haunts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can find no reliable sources to establish the notability of this web series. Sarilox (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: All that I can find on Google is the official website and Youtube. I found zero sources on Google News and Google Books. Joe Chill (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article's subject is not notable, and therefore does not pass our WP:NOTABILITY criteria. A quick google search shows nothing to support it's inclusion. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per WP:WEB, as a non-notable YouTube series. Minimal to no third-party coverage. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete Non-notable YouTube material. The article gives no independent sources at all. Searches produce the organisation's own web site, YouTube, MySpace, etc etc, but no evidence of significant independent coverage. Article was created as promotion by COI editor (he/she uses "we" in a talk page in reference to "Local Ghost Haunts"). JamesBWatson (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete non-notable web content A7. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JForget 02:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dave Snowden
- Dave Snowden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Written like a resumé and unsourced, tagged since 2008/2007 Pevos (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pretty much indifferent on this one. I didn't put the material there and I have not edited it, not do I intend to. I do note however that this AfD followed immediately on from a content dispute at Spiral Dynamics where the above editor has violated both WP:3rr and WP:BRD. My real name is very easy to find as I link to my web site from my user page. Its just too much of a coincidence that this nomination followed that dispute. --Snowded TALK 20:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep That this page was nominated by somebody engaged in a content dispute on Wikipedia with the subject of the article gives an enormous appearance of impropriety, at the very least. BLP concerns mitigated in this case, as subject of the article does not take offense. RayTalk 00:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems to be bad-faith nomination. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Speedy keep. Nomination looks like bad faith. Moreover, the extensive publication list absolutely meets WP:GNG and/or WP:AUTH. LotLE×talk 23:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep Google results: 287, 170, 234 Although not 100% conclusive to show notability, shows nominator probably did not spend any time look for references. Okip (formerly Ikip) 01:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy Delete per G12 by Nyttend. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edwin B. Alderson, Jr.
- Edwin B. Alderson, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Despite everything that he has done in his life, I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy deleted as a copyvio of http://www.state.ar.us/jeac/biojud.html. If it hadn't been a copyvio, I would have said "keep", because being on the state supreme court is sufficient to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Someone please close this, as I can never remember how to close AFDs. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of Sharpie Permanent Markers
- List of Sharpie Permanent Markers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable list Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:CATALOG Listing the different colors of a specific brand of permanent marker smacks of advertising. Joshua Scott (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Joshua Scott comments. (Nice job formatting all te little colored boxes, though.) Edison (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question Is there any way, tho, that this list could be considered useful? I know I LIKE IT is not a reason but personally this seems useful to me and could serve informaitonal purpose. However it would have to be rewritten since it is incomplete in its present state and contains one color listed numerous times. ¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if it is merged into Sharpie (marker). Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Anyone wanting the colours is more likely to look in the catalogue they're about to order from, or see what's on the shelf in the shop. (Personal experience there - is that OR?) I know I'd never think of looking in Wikipedia for this info, and I've looked up some very strange stuff here. Peridon (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A list that simply displays the colors of a particular product without providing any additional information is clearly too trivial, at least in my opinion. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm afraid that this crosses the line into advertising and beyond-- Wikipedia is not an office supplies catalog. One can access the company's website to learn about the different colors available for individual Sharpie™ brand markers http://www.sharpie.com/enUS/ProductCategory/permanent_markers.html just as one can go to another company website to learn the latest available colors for http://www.avery.com/avery/en_us/Products/Writing-Instruments/Highlighters/_/Ns=Rank%7C1%7C%7CProduct%20Number%7C1 Hi-Liters™. Nothing wrong with putting a link to the company catalog in an article, but there is a problem with the article becoming the company catalog. Mandsford (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What colors of socks does Sears Roebuck sellin each style? What sizes of woodscrews does Ace Hardware sell? Unencyclopedic WP:CATALOG information in each case. Edison (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Wikipedia isn't a directory. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all the above. Plus it doesn't help navigation ¨¨ victor falk 05:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SNOW, or merge as noted. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per Mansford. This reads like an advertisement. Warrah (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yet another pointless list, at least we're doing the right thing with this one. JBsupreme (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn. I didn't notice that there was already an AfD and that notability was shown in it. I'll add the links from the previous AfD to the article. Joe Chill (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Benat Achiary
- Benat Achiary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All that I can find in Google is Youtube, Answers.com, music sites that are just profiles or trivial mentions of his such as CD Universe and Emusic, and lyrics. All that I can find in Google News is lots of Magnum Photos results which is a site for photography. This paragraph that I found in Google Books shows that he might be notable. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ikonboard
- Ikonboard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seemingly non-notable software. No coverage in reliable independent sources that I can see. Some IPs are edit warring over it, so I assume a WP:PROD would be contested. Pcap ping 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of this article is based on forum posts, but it does have a source that passes WP:RS, this interview on Sitepoint's web site. There are lot of google books hits, but many of those are because "ikonboard.cgi" appears in some url cited in the book. That fact and the interview suggest this software was widely used, so it may be of historical importance. This 2002 Que Publishing book explicitly says it's one of the most "famous and notable" together with WWWBoard, WebBBS, and YABB. I'm going to leave this open for now, hopefully more convincing secondary sources will be found. Pcap ping 23:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm a former developer of Ikonboard, later Ikonforums. It's true that this software was once widely used. Searches for Ikonboard will still generate hundreds of thousands of hits. Mostly running the popular (and more or less last) releases of Ikonboard, 3.1.2a and 3.1.3. It's now mostly just a cult hit. The original creator of Ikonboard later went on to found Invision Power Services, so the connection to a semi-notable person (the link to Matthew Mecham is still red though) does exist. Do reliable sources exist? Probably not. It's long since faded into obscurity on the web, so its unlikely new sources will come out. Whether or not this amounts to anything notable, I don't know. ^demon[omg plz] 13:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Weak) Keep: As per ^demon I'm also a former developer of Ikonboard. I think that historically Ikonboard had notability and as the book link suggests it used to be a very popular software competing with other software which is still notable. That said these days it is nowhere near as notable as it once was, in my opinion ownership battles and mis-management affected development and lost many of its users. The article has some independent interviews to provide third-party sourcing, unfortunately some third-party sites such as swarf.net have ceased operating. The web archive is the only reliable method of recording official announcements as ownership of the ikonboard.com domain appears to have been lost. I doubt it will be possible to provide any reliable third-party sourcing of any future development. I would suggest the article remains semi-protected though it would appear much of the IP based editing/vandalism has been done by the current developer WP:COI (based on User_talk:68.213.153.149). Brollachan (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but should be refactored to focus on the software, not on the people behind it. Take out the "it is believed" cruft; let people make their own decisions from facts that can be cited. GreenReaper (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's old, and not really used any more, but it definitely held a place of great relevance in the forum software community once upon a time. It was the only free bulletin board that offered a robust feature set comparable to that of paid solutions at the time. 205.215.210.10 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Peicott
- Joseph Peicott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Autobiography of a young associate producer of some TV episodes for whom I can find no coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. (There was another Joseph Peicott, killed near Boston in 1993 in a traffic accident.) He does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE or any other aspect of WP:BIO. Glenfarclas (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, this was on my "to do" list but I never got around to it... (NO NOT THAT TO DO LIST YOU CREEP.) JBsupreme (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Could not find any reliable converage on subject to make him notable per guidelines.SoxFan999 (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Somali Irrigation
- Somali Irrigation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- Delete. Non-notable company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unenthusiastic delete. It could be notable if there's literature outside Google's reach or not in English. As it stands, though, we don't have any third-party references to make it notable. Chutznik (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As noted by Chutznik, it's quite possibly notable, but we'd need to have the sources present in order to consider it notable. Nyttend (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 00:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you call on an ipod touch
- Can you call on an ipod touch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a how-to guide I42 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I wish there was a speedy delete option because this is a hopeless how-to guide. JBsupreme (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for same reason as above. --Stroppolotalk 19:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Perfect example of WP:NOT material... I also wish there was a speedy deletion criteria for how-to guides as hopeless as this. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Not only is this a how-to guide, it's also a pretty pointless one. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as speedily as possible- Man, I tried... I would consider it vandalism, so I marked it as that. Totally pointless how to. Exactly what Wikipedia is not.-- iBentalk/contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 03:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree that a speedy would probably be non-controversial, except for the fact that we have no speedy criteria to back it. If the author had been a Vandalism-only account, that'd be enough to trigger a G3 in my mind, but this is for all appearances a good-faith attempt at a guide. The fact that guides don't fit here is not material to that good faith. But, agree, this isn't encyclopedic. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom as explicit how-to guide, preferably under the snowball guideline. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this could've been easily prodded. fetchcomms☛ 00:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete, as per everyone else and WP:SNOW --JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per TTTSNB. Cheers!☮ —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk | If you reply somewhere other than my talk, please talkback me. 17:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- so tempting to speedy as an IAR... --Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tigran Mansuryan
- Tigran Mansuryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Content merged into Tigran Mansurian; list of works was a complete duplicate anyway, so there was not much to merge. Classical geographer (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per standard practice after performing a merger. This isn't at all an unlikely search target (it got 150 hits in January), so it will be a useful redirect. Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of characters in AdventureQuest
- List of characters in AdventureQuest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a list of characters for a video game of marginal notability, itself at AfD. Contested prod, with argument normal accepted type of article; better than individual articles of characters, hardly an "uncontroversial deletion". Pcap ping 19:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 19:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Or at least merge into the game's main article. No need to keep the page like this.--TrustMeTHROW! 20:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)(sock of banner user. Pcap ping 00:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]- Delete because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a database of irrelevant trivia. Reyk YO! 22:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reyk.--Prodigy96 (talk) 01:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)(sock of banned user. Pcap ping 00:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]- Delete per nom. LotLE×talk 04:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not sure why the prod was contested, not every game has a notable set of characters. ThemFromSpace 15:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. What's next, List of characters who appeared once in an episode of The Simpsons? Oh, wait. JBsupreme (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes me think of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional characters who can fly.--Prodigy96 (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Suggest rehoming at AQWiki or similar specialized source. Doubt the AdventureQuest page is going to have room for it; interested parties should note that that page also has an AfD nomination. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that find. They already seem to have almost everything one could possibly write about this, and on separate pages, e.g. over 200 pages in Category:Monsters alone. That also explains where the fans have moved, since this page saw no significant editing in quite a wile. Pcap ping 23:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Unresolved issue of whether the sources qualify as reliable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gamble Fish
- Gamble Fish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. Unreferenced article about a manga with no assertion of notability. Fails WP:BK. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a manga running in Weekly Shōnen Champion with 15 published book collections is certainly notable, although sourcing is likely to be Japanese language only. The Japanese Wikipedia article has some sources which may be a starting point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Nomination fails WP:BEFORE - no discussion at the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:BEFORE is a recommendation, not a requirement. Nor is there a requirement for a discussion on the article's talk page before an AfD nomination. —Farix (t | c) 18:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed that is not a speedy keep criterion -- prior consultation on the page about notability concerns is a strongly suggested courtesy but not an actual requirement. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it is the lack of a notability assertion that led me to initiate this AfD, given that I couldn't find an article on the author. To me, the lack of an assertion of notability (as opposed to a notability asserted but not supported) is enough to bypass WP:BEFORE. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commment A 15 vols-ongoing series published by Akita Shoten([12]). No licensor outside Japan. Absent not only from Anime News Network database but also from the reported news, meaning not a single volume of this series made it into the Japanese manga charts. --KrebMarkt 18:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A series doesn't last 15 volumes without some sort of popularity, which suggests but does not affirm notability as Wikipedia defines it. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. As far as online English sources, Gamble is almost non-existent: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=%22Gamble+Fish%22 --Gwern (contribs) 16:23 31 January 2010 (GMT)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A notable magazine that's been around since 1969, features this, thus vast numbers of potential readers for the series exist. The series wouldn't last that long in a popular magazine without a significant number of fans. Manga related magazines don't often review manga found in their competition's magazines, nor are most manga reviewed anywhere at all, thus the suggested guidelines aren't relevant here, you having to ignore them and think for yourself, using common sense. Dream Focus 21:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability can't be inherited, no volumes among the 15 released managed to make it into the manga charts and there no much hype around it in manga fan community with scanlation lagging behind with less than half of the chapters done. Call to good sense is based on the credits you give to the editor making the call. --KrebMarkt 07:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For now, a discussion can easily be brought up on the talk page on japanese reference finding and such. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm pushing for no consensus. This article notability issue is not resolved. Saying it has 15 volumes just won't make me vote keep, it just stopped me for voting delete. No evidence of notability were provided and only the existence of the series was asserted. If nothing change this one will be back to Afd for another that's certainty. If such thing occurs, i wish to avoid keep vote based it was keep in the previous Afd argument. Closing admin should read my position as vote to counterweight the Keep votes and aiming for no consensus result. --KrebMarkt 07:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure we can vote for no consensus, and I'm not sure it'll fly given only the nominator has actually said delete. There's circumstantial evidence of notability, enough so I'm unwilling to say delete, but nothing at hand that demonstrates it to the callous letter of The Law, so I'm also unwilling to say keep outright. I'm going with no vote here. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Week delete While 15 published volumes is an indication of notability, there has been no reliable third-party sources presented for this series. Without them, the article can be nothing more than a mere a plot summary. —Farix (t | c) 17:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand, using on the sources in the Japanese article. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JForget 02:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lost in the Meritocracy: The Undereducation of an Overachiever
- Lost in the Meritocracy: The Undereducation of an Overachiever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Almost no content iBentalk/contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 18:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Sure it's a stub, but a cursory Google search reveals a lot of information. The book is clearly notable. I have added content and references to the article so please take another look at it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
- Additional comment: I see that this was nominated for deletion, as having "almost no content", only half an hour after the article was created, and while the creator was clearly still working on it (e.g. creating an infobox). Surely we should give people a little time to establish content, before complaining about lack of content!--MelanieN (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In response: Please use the {{under construction}} tag.-- iBentalk/contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? It says "In general, this template should not be used for new articles with little content."
- Personally, I often start an article small, and add information as I research it. Wikipedia seems to accept this approach, see Wikipedia:stub. "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information, and it should be capable of expansion." The fact that an article is a stub, or is very short, is not one of the reasons for deletion.
- BTW I am not the author of the article, and I know nothing about this book except what I researched - never heard of it before today. I am just a person who likes to occasionally "rescue" an article from deletion, when I think the subject has merit.--MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
- In response: Please use the {{under construction}} tag.-- iBentalk/contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment: I see that this was nominated for deletion, as having "almost no content", only half an hour after the article was created, and while the creator was clearly still working on it (e.g. creating an infobox). Surely we should give people a little time to establish content, before complaining about lack of content!--MelanieN (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Due to the two New York Times reviews; that's pretty significant coverage for a new book. ThemFromSpace 15:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Concur with the above, there are sources that document notability. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, here we have notability confirmed in so many words: the New York Times put this book on their list of "Notable Books of 2009".[13]
- Keep Added notability claims.-- iBentalk/contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 03:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A14(M) motorway
- A14(M) motorway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is mostly nonsense not backed up by the sources given. It is true that the A14(M) is an unsigned motorway, however it is actually a short section a mile long, commonly considered to be part of the A1(M). It is only referred to on paper.
I attempted to redirect this to the A14 article but the user has just undone the action. The section about the planned upgrade is true, but given that it was only on the cards for 3 years and never really got far in the planning process, certainly doesn't give it notability. Jeni (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have backed up my point --Rstallard2 (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Backed up what point? The fact you have created an inaccurate page, and once all the rubbish is stripped out you are left with something which just isn't remotely notable. Jeni (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is not inaccurate as all 3 references suggest. You may think this is rubbish but i have added references that prove that the A14 is OFFICIALLY part of the A14(M). That is why we should Keep and add information as it comes --Rstallard2 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Backed up what point? The fact you have created an inaccurate page, and once all the rubbish is stripped out you are left with something which just isn't remotely notable. Jeni (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sorry, but where have you backed up your point? Where are your official sources? Personally I have no knowledge of this designation and the road is not built to motorway standards. Where are your references from Hansard? By coincidence I have found official reference in the 1960s to a potential M45 running west from Ipswich - I guess it was intended to link to the M45 in Warwickshire but, with respect, that is another story and does not give credibility to this article. PeterEastern (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added my prove as no 2 official documentation shows a road beween a1 and bar hill called a14(M)--Rstallard2 (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have found this official reference to the road being called the A604(M) so there is certainly some real history here.[14]
- Was called a604(M) because the a14 was once the a604. But was renamed to A14(M) When the A604 Became the A14 A14(M) Documentation--Rstallard2 (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For the record, here is a reference from the highways agency to the A604(M) as well.[15]. We hear what you are saying Rstallard2, but these references are about past plans, there was also a plan for an M12, but that doesn't mean I insist that part of the current A12 is a motorway - a motorway is a legal classificiation and I have no evidence that the A14 has that designation today - do you? If you started your article, "The A14(M) was a proposed name for a section of the current A14" then that would be more sensible. PeterEastern (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability. I do not recall a precedent of all "secret unsigned motorways" having some inherent notability. Edison (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A bit of OR from me: I am a not infrequent user of the A14 over many sections, but in particular the London end and the M6 to M11 area. The section in question here is definitely not built to motorway standard, and while there might have been (and probably were - I'm not casting doubts on Rstallard2's research) it never has been one, and would take considerable work to be of motorway standard. I think the relevant info should be in the A14 article (and also that the **** road should have been built as a motorway as well, but that's PoV...). BTW, if the info on Rstallard2's page is correct, I would congratulate him/her on her/his achievements (spelling...) both here and outside. Peridon (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We seem to be getting off track a bit, above. The question is not if the subject existed (as a road or a proposal, or whatever), but whether the subject is notable under our policies. In this case, I agree with Jeni - a well-constructed reference in the A14 article would be sufficient. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have now researched the available reliable evidence and sumarised it on the A14 talk page here. There is clearly evidence that a 1.2 mile section of the A14 has had and does have many amusingly contradictory designations but there is no evidence whatsoever that there is any current 'secret' motorway of any greater length. I stick with my earlier vote of Delete and will roll the content from the talk page into the A14 article in due course. PeterEastern (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --John (talk) 07:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gregory P. Joseph
- Gregory P. Joseph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject of this article has requested its deletion at OTRS ticket#2010013110017466. I tend to support the deletion; he does not appear to meet WP:BIO from what I can see. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, marginal at best, and I think that we should lean toward deletion in fulfillment of an OTRS request when the subject is on the edge of notability. Nyttend (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just a point of order; why would we start an AfD because the subject of a BLP requests it? If the information in the article were objectionable for reasons of accuracy or POV language etc., then the relevant text could be removed on that basis but off-wiki correspondence (that I cannot read for myself) should not be mentioned as part of the nomination here. To avoid doubt, the AfD should be based purely on the merits of the article, in this case the nominator's opinion that the article fails notability guidelines which I presume is true here (disregarding the "tend to support" qualification). Ash (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Re "why would we start an AfD because the subject of a BLP requests it?": we start an AfD whenever anyone requests it. I don't see any reason to deny this privilege to the subject of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was THIS IS A TITLE. JForget 02:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Think Tank Forums
- Think Tank Forums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seemingly non-notable software. Very marginal coverage in reliable independent sources. Pcap ping 17:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 17:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, this is a non-notable forum software which has not received significant coverage from independent sources. JBsupreme (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: All that I can find is download sites. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. LotLE×talk 07:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was withdrawn by nominator. ... discospinster talk 03:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of documentaries
- List of documentaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page should either be renamed Lists of documentary films or just deleted, it seems to me. Or is this valid as a redirect? The only content are three links that could easily be added to the See also section of Documentary film. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC) WITHDRAWN per below[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of documentary films, which can be modified to accomplish what this set out to do-- that is, to provide "see also" links to Category:Documentary films by country and Category:Documentaries by topic. When people are clicking on a list, they want to see a list. It's a legitimate search term, but at the moment it's a misleading title that promises something that it does not deliver. Mandsford (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Works for me. At this time, we don't seem to have lists of other documentary related products, such as documentary television programs or series, or radio documentaries. If we do in the future, the redirect would need to be revisited, I imagine. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, redirect to List of documentary films per Mandsford. See WP:RFD#KEEP. — Rankiri (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm withdrawing the nom. As soon we get a close, either admin or non-admin, I'll do the redirect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EbilGames
- EbilGames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
If the company is tethering on the verge of non-notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artix Entertainment (4th nomination)), then their site that holds their more obscure games surely is even less notable. Pcap ping 16:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think the company is notable enough for inclusion, but I can recognize that it is debatable. The company's website on the other hand is clearly out of our scope. Where did all of these articles come from? ThemFromSpace 16:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nothing but promotional, and no real notability Alan - talk 02:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AdventureQuest
- AdventureQuest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only reviewed on seemingly obscure sites. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artix Entertainment (4th nomination). Pcap ping 16:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC) (I think the sources found below are adequate. 01:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 16:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It appears that the nominator has uncovered a WP:WALLEDGARDEN of sorts. JBsupreme (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just !voted on the "List of characters" page for this game but I didn't realise that the game itself was up for Afd as well. But since I see no reason to keep this article for any encyclopedic value, I have to agree with the previous !votes and say, delete.--TrustMeTHROW! 20:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)(sock of banned user 00:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Nifboy (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable game. Does have mainstream reviews, such as About.com: http://linux.about.com/od/softgame/fr/fr_AdventureQ.htm Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the above is a RS, as is [16]. I opened a discussion on one of the other review sites on WP:VG/S. IGN also copied four press releases for the game, something they don't do a lot, though copied press releases don't count for WP:N. User:Krator (t c) 14:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure the IGN interview isn't some kind of joke? "Artix: Well, we wanted to have elite 40 man raids, but then we realized it was a single-player game." Wuh? "Galanoth: There are a over 1,000 monsters", then later.. "Galanoth: Over 750 of our monster models are unique." - so, what, the other 250 are copied from other games? But, I suppose about.com and ign are two sources that we regularly use, so this would satisfy the general notability guideline. Marasmusine (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the game doesn't have to be good to have an article here. We can have an article about crappy games as long as they received independent coverage in reliable sources. It does seem to have a fanbase though: there's an entire wikia about it, with hundreds of pages; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of characters in AdventureQuest Pcap ping 01:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I suspect the distinction between 1000 monsters and 750 unique monsters is that at least 250 monsters are just minor color or texture changes to another monster's model. The difference between a red dragon and white dragon is the color scheme and the effects they generate, but the model is basically the same. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 16:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure the IGN interview isn't some kind of joke? "Artix: Well, we wanted to have elite 40 man raids, but then we realized it was a single-player game." Wuh? "Galanoth: There are a over 1,000 monsters", then later.. "Galanoth: Over 750 of our monster models are unique." - so, what, the other 250 are copied from other games? But, I suppose about.com and ign are two sources that we regularly use, so this would satisfy the general notability guideline. Marasmusine (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Nothing by Artix Entertainment appears to be notable per our various policies. Most of the references in the article come from one website, which is definitely not independent of the game itself. I think we can say goodbye to any and all articles regarding this company.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This 2008 book published by the FT Press states that the game receives 6.5 million users per month and has partnered with more than 90 advertisers. This and other reliable sources which are but a Google away, makes this a notable game. This isn't a case for AFD, it's case for cleanup - there's too much in universe minutiae, it may be better to merge this with all other Artix Entertainment properties into one shorter article. - hahnchen 16:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Otherwise the time and efforts of hundreds upon hundreds of editors, including me, will be wasted unneedlessly. Fruit.Smoothie (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pune Gliding Center
- Pune Gliding Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Seems to be a non-notable field, sources mention it tangentially; a few famous people appear to have visited it, but I'm not sure that confers notability in the sense that we require it. Do we have any relevant guidelines here? Anyway, opening to the community for insight and opinions. GlassCobra 16:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I am not seeing any evidence of WP:N and the bulk of the article doesn't appear to explain why the center is notable, apart from by association. Eddie.willers (talk) 17:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 22:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete doesnt appear to be notable, most of the content is general stuff about gliding in India which would be better in an oveview aticle like Gliding in India. MilborneOne (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
-->
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spank jazz
- Spank jazz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested Prod. Article is an unreferenced assertion of a genre founded on one track on an album by a defunct band. There is no Wikipedia page for the band or the album. No genre references on AllAboutJazz; only reference on Allmusic is the album track title itself. AllyD (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified WikiProject Jazz. AllyD (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)#[reply]
- Delete - Genre isn't recognised by any leading music publisher, record label or record sales companies. Failing to see any notability as a genre. The band it's supposedly coined after isn't exactly notable, either. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 16:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:NEO. Eddie.willers (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure this exactly classes as a neologism; it seems to be more of a one off term coined by a non-notable band. I agree with the gist, though. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 18:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as per nom, and remove link from {{Jazz}}. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as non-notable genre neologism, coined by some random band. UnitAnode 21:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Richardrj talk email 16:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:N, WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 09:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Khalid Usman
- Khalid Usman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Two-line biographical article about a chartered accountant and former town councillor. Sporadically mentioned and quoted in local media, but nothing approaching siginficant coverage. Subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. --RrburkeekrubrR 15:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all points in WP:POLITICIAN -- Town councillor; did not receive substantial press coverage. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 17:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - clear failure to meet WP:POLITICIAN. Eddie.willers (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- --RrburkeekrubrR 14:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- --RrburkeekrubrR 14:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Plain Talk Volume 1-Everything you ever and never wanted to know about Racism and Stereotypes
- Plain Talk Volume 1-Everything you ever and never wanted to know about Racism and Stereotypes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Flunks WP:N and WP:SPAM; no reliable sources; self-promotional. (While self-promotion is not a reason for deletion, the article's other failings are.) THF (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Of the four "References" currently in the article, three do not discuss the book at all, and the fourth was written by the author of the book. No clear claim is ever presented for the notability of the book in the article: no awards, no reviews, no critical reception. —C.Fred (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No reliable sources for the content or importance of this book, and the article appears to be a mix of self-promotion of the book and promotion of the book's author's personal theories. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete gsearch for strings "plain talk" "corey washington" gave no RS hits. self published through xlibris, which has no relevant acceptance criteria. a less spammy article may be recreated in the future if it actually does become notable per WP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Stonemason nominated me for deletion should be wiped out because I changed some of his edits on the All-White Basketball league. I think that the deletion should be held off for 6 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaintalk2010 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC) What spam are you talking about. At the very least some promotional items have been removed personally. I just think it's shady that the guy that I'm involved in an edit war with is the guy who nominates this page for deletion. Now that's a conflict of interest. The deletion process is too subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaintalk2010 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not nominate this page for deletion, User: THF did. Get your facts straight. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if the closing admin discounted Stonemason's opinion, there are five other editors with good rationales to delete the article. That's enough to show a consensus that the article should be deleted. If you want to build a case for keeping the article, focus on the identified flaws in the article and show where it has received significant coverage in reliable sources.
—C.Fred (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- if the only problem with this article was that it was overly promotional, i would have nominated for keep and probably worked to fix it (i do a lot of small fixups for book/author articles). if the article does stay, i will comment on the "spamminess" on the article talk page. its not relevant here as its not grounds for deletion. it was a throwaway comment essentially in support of its potential future notability. sorry if i sounded too flippant.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, absence of reliable sources = nonnotability. Saying "delete per nom" isn't equivalent to nominating this for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Self-published book, no reliable sources to establish notability. GlassCobra 18:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, spam being pushed by several SPAs which are being researched for sockpuppetism. Woogee (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per what everyone has already said above. Fails WP:N, WP:SPAM, and about half a dozen other policies. Main editor appears to be author of the self published book WP:COI. He has also used a WP:SOCK to avoid WP:3RR. So delete all the way. Rapido (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. nominator also changed to keep JForget 00:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ancient Arabic units of measurement
- Ancient Arabic units of measurement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A search for reference, found little to no support for any of the content of this article. Yes there Ancient Arabic units of measurement, but for most of the units mentioned here no references are found. See example reference in article, what is found has no support for the measurements as documented. The farsakh is the only thing I find close and even that does not match references. Removal on non-referenced content per WP:V would result in a article that no longer meets the expectations of the title. Prod was removed so bringing to AfD Jeepday (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAlthough the topic is notable for its own article, an unsourced article is dubious, and keeping a demonstrably inaccurate article makes an entire encyclopedia dubious. Looking through the history of this one, it was created back in the "It's none of your damn business where I got this from" days of Wikipedia, and had no source at all until the nominator (Jeepday) located one: ([17]) would be the heart of a good article as to some of the measurements, and if someone wants to attempt a rescue, in which case, move it to userspace until it can be something that doesn't say 2+2=7. The Encyclopedia Britannica used to have an article called "Measures and Weights" that converted units of measure into English and metric equivalents. Rather than a clean up, this one needs to be replaced with something brand new from the rescue factory. Mandsford (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please substantiate "demonstrably incorrect". So far as I can see the highly reliable reference that I have given below covers everything in the article. Hans Adler 18:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Deletion of an article is generally interpreted as implying that re-creation of the article is strongly discouraged. That would certainly not be appropriate here. As to the sourcing, we need to take into account the systemic bias against cultures using a non-Latin script. If we search for one specific transcription of a unit, then we are only going to find those occurrences that use exactly the same transcription. By simply searching for "arabic units" in Google Books I found the Encyclopaedia of scientific units, weights, and measures, which appeared with Springer and appears to cover everything that is in the article in a single table. Hans Adler 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a reliable source (François Cardarelli, ed. Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights, and Measures: Their SI Equivalences and Origins (Springer 2003) p77-78) at least for units of length, area, and volume. If someone is willing to replace the existing content with something verifiable-- even to the extent of blanking the page and replacing it with the two links to Google books-- then I'd support a keep. Otherwise, we should put a note up saying "This is totally unreliable and should not be taken seriously by someone consulting an encyclopedia". The first requirement of reference information, even greater than that it should be verifiable, is that it be correct. Mandsford (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless someone rewrites it before this AFD closes: incorrect information does not belong in Wikipedia, and the only ways to get rid of an entirely incorrect article are complete rewrites and deletion. We sometimes delete articles for reasons irrelevant to notability (especially through speedy deletion, but not exclusively), so it's not at all uncommon to encounter a situation when there's no problem with recreating an article that was (altogether properly) deleted. I don't see how keeping a mangled article will help the encyclopedia more than deletion will. Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Vote changed, see below Why on earth delete if the problem is a lack of referrences? -- Egil (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides that Wikipedia:Verifiability allows for the removal of questionable unreferenced content. Lack of references is one of the symptoms, the problem is that the content of the article cannot be validated; it is extremely likely that none of it is accurate, and the entire article content is fabricated. This article was reviewed by Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles prior to being posted for AfD and no references supporting the article content could be found. The question in this AfD is should the article be stripped to a sinlgle line about farsakh, or should it be completely deleted. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken. As a flashback, I remember this article was created by splitting up a far too big article on historical weights and measures, and I'm sure some of the original content was quite questionable. If you have researched this and not being able to verify, then this article has no value. I will thus change my vote to Delete. Egil (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides that Wikipedia:Verifiability allows for the removal of questionable unreferenced content. Lack of references is one of the symptoms, the problem is that the content of the article cannot be validated; it is extremely likely that none of it is accurate, and the entire article content is fabricated. This article was reviewed by Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles prior to being posted for AfD and no references supporting the article content could be found. The question in this AfD is should the article be stripped to a sinlgle line about farsakh, or should it be completely deleted. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. {{trout}} I don't understand why people here are voting for deletion of an article based on speculations that the content may be incorrect, after someone has found a Springer book that backs up the content. Hans Adler 01:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nom voting Keep, thanks to the work of User:Hans Adler who found and added references supporting the article content. When the reference was first posted here it did not open as readable for me, but the reference on the article clearly goes to a book supporitin the content as written (still room to improve as always). My Orginal research was based on the words for the units, which came up mostly empty Hans focused on the subject a search term and found a great reference. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, it seems you originally missed my explanation concerning different transcriptions. I think it's important to keep this issue in mind in order to avoid systemic bias against cultures that use a non-latin script. As it happens, my work didn't consist in more than entering "Arabic units of measurement" in Google books and looking at the first hit. The trout is on the barbecue. Who wants some? Hans Adler 12:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close in that nominator has withdrawn nomination. Changing vote to Keep and praising Hans Adler as well. Mandsford (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David Soutter
- David Soutter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable official of political parties who has not stood for elected office himself. No reliable sources found and indeed there appear only to be passing mentions in a tiny number of newspaper articles. Has been tagged for notability for 18 months or so. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not meet the notability guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN.
- Delete - Meets non of the criteria set out in WP:BIO - Galloglass 14:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Does not meet notability guidelines. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Internet car buying in the UK
- Internet car buying in the UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD (by blanking). PROD concern "No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources" blue520 14:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unreferenced, unencyclopedic essay RadioFan (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - perfect example of what's meant by WP:NOT. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete They've said it all above.... Peridon (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete and do not wish to see Internet car buying in India, Interent car buying in Chile or Internet car buying in the Sahara Desert any time soon. From an encyclopedia's position, we just don't need articles of this nature.--TrustMeTHROW! 20:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded.Peridon (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
::Thirded.--Prodigy96 (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC))User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep (WP:NACD) CTJF83 chat 19:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
William Croft (linguist)
- William Croft (linguist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable BLP of a linguist. The only independent source isn't even about HIM, it's about Greenberg, and only mentions Croft as it relates to Greenberg. That doesn't satisfy the "non-trivial" aspect of our notability policy. The other source is simply a university profile. UnitAnode 14:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - appears to be a leader in his field. He has published numerous books and papers and seems to be often cited[18][19] He publishes in what appear to be the most respected journals of the field (e.g. http://www.reference-global.com/doi/abs/10.1515/cogl.1998.9.2.151). At least one textbook (http://www.amazon.com/Cognitive-Linguistics-Cambridge-Textbooks/dp/0521667704) among his several is in wide use and are often cited. He is "well known".[20] Another textbook here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Radical-Construction-Grammar-Typological-Perspective/dp/0198299540/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264961610&sr=1-3 Quoted often in mass media as a linguistic expert[21] (see note 14 to WP:PROF). - Wikidemon (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Very strong Google scholar citation counts: 1344, 785, 727+332, 714, 612, etc. Which is to say, just among the citations to his top five publications there are some 4500 reliable sources about his research. A clear pass of WP:PROF #1. Nominator is an unapologetic repeat violator of WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep Disruptive nomination - If you're going to send something to AFD and cause many users to spend time on an article, an elementary respect for a collaborative environment demands that you do at least a cursory search for sourcing. RayTalk 00:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a "speedy keep" until these claims are sourced. Once they are, with reliable, secondary sources, I'll withdraw the nomination myself. Before you accuse someone of being "disruptive", think two or three times. Demanding that articles on living people be sourced or deleted is not "disruptive." UnitAnode 00:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. 4500 verifiable independent reliable sources attest notability. This AfD nomination is incompetently researched and timewasting. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The only thing "incompetent" here is that people bitching aren't sourcing. UnitAnode 03:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But there are hundreds of articles on professors with pitifully low citation counts you could be nominating. Heck, you could just Google search by "biography of a living person" "notability guideline for academics" site:en.wikipedia.org and find dozens of articles already tagged for being both unsourced and on possibly non-notable professors. Abductive (reasoning) 11:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The only thing "incompetent" here is that people bitching aren't sourcing. UnitAnode 03:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is clear that he satisfies WP:PROF on the basis of citations alone. This is enough to satisfy WP:N, to presume notability, even if substantial sources about him are absent - i.e. if he does not satisfy the GNG. In such a case (not saying this is one) what we can say is limited, but not vacuous: in addition to things from his university, we can at least include a bibliography, which does not need to be externally sourced, as it sources itself.John Z (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep per RayAYang. LotLE×talk 23:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- clear and unequivcal keep A very influential an esteemed linguist. Frivolous nomination.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Leroy Ah Ben
- Leroy Ah Ben (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All that I can find in Google is unreliable sites, a profile, and a trivial mention in The Walkley Magazine. All that I can find in Google News is a few news articles by him. I found zero sources in Google Books. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. A deletionist. I love you guys. All I can offer is that he's on TV in Australia every night on an evening news program on SBS which broadcasts nationally, which of course doesn't leave a textual trace on the web because he's a broadcast TV reporter. Why not enjoy yourself and go ahead and delete it. Timbomb (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He fails WP:CREATIVE, which applies to journalists. Has not received significant coverage in reliable sources. Being a news reporter on the TV does not confer notability. The usual guidelines must apply.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete no indepth third party coverage about him. [22]. LibStar (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no indepth coverage in third party sources (although I'm aware of his work on SBS), although I must admit to a certain sense of glee at !voting to delete the article of the school captain of my school's principal rival, from the year that I was a senior. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Duriga
- Jim Duriga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All that I can find in Google is 123people.com, monkees101.com which only has one sentence, sites to buy his books, profiles, unreliable sites, and Open Library. All that I can find in Google News is three trivial mentions in a local newspaper. All that I can find in Google Books is books by him. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Joe Chill (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree. No significant coverage found of Duriga or his books.--Michig (talk) 13:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No sources which establish required notability. Yworo (talk) 17:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that there because the only sources that exist that cover this man are of his crimes, the article fails WP:BLP1E. NW (Talk) 12:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Edwin Curry
- Edwin Curry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I know the definition of "BLP1E" is disputed, but I believe this article in it's current form does fall under the term. The article covers nothing on this man other than one part of his life, how he got jailed for being a pedophile. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence was controversial and other examples in the category similarly focus on this part of someone's life. --candle•wicke 10:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Per WP:ONEEVENT. It seems to me the only notability (if that should even be the right word here to use) is for this one event. Im perplexed as to how even a merge is appropriate and where this could go as a redirect right now. Therefore I think deletion (In the pages current form) is appropriate as outlined above. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am curious (as an aside and not to take away from this) but is the article at Viggo Kristiansen from the same category notable? It seems he has done less and might be one example of a major BLP issue through similar focus on his crimes (with a lot less sources). --candle•wicke 12:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-The article is sourced and is indeed notable in that the guy was found guilty of 189 counts of indecent assault and sentenced to only 4 years. For WP:ONEEVENT, are you referring to the sentencing, or to the period during which he was assaulting these children?...there appears to be some lexical ambiguity in your statement. The article does need a bit work, but as it stands, it need not be nominated for deletion. Smallman12q (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, quoting BLP1E, it says "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category." It seems (to me at this point) that this person's role is indeed substantial and since the names of those he abused are unknown he is very much the centre of this case. I had no idea who the Hinckley, Jr. guy was before I clicked but if the best example of this type of biography is someone who nearly killed someone but failed, well... I don't see how this serial abuser over three decades is any
worseless suited for an article? --candle•wicke 13:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- (edit conflict) To me I see this as one event that the trial and the period are one in the same, and as such I would belive the article follows to cover the person only in the context of this single event (But i agree this can have ambuigity to it). That is just my opinion of this paticular article. However I do concede under WP:PERP that the person narrowly does satisfy point 3 (But not 1 and 2 in my opinion at least). However thats if it has persistant coverage to be historical which you could probably argue this will. Maybe retitling the article and re writing portions to reflect the trial and not the individual would be more appropriate rather than deletion and in time if there is continual coverage the article could reflect the individual? Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Notable because he was sentenced to 189 counts of assault" sounds like an arbitrary number to me. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) To me I see this as one event that the trial and the period are one in the same, and as such I would belive the article follows to cover the person only in the context of this single event (But i agree this can have ambuigity to it). That is just my opinion of this paticular article. However I do concede under WP:PERP that the person narrowly does satisfy point 3 (But not 1 and 2 in my opinion at least). However thats if it has persistant coverage to be historical which you could probably argue this will. Maybe retitling the article and re writing portions to reflect the trial and not the individual would be more appropriate rather than deletion and in time if there is continual coverage the article could reflect the individual? Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - clearly, obviously notable individual (unfortunately), which passes WP:GNG (several sources), WP:BLP1E (not a single event; sources are all from his recent conviction, but the crimes are not recent and are very many; sources referring to him and his personality also are cited) and WP:PERP (notable crimes). The crimes were notable enough for the sentence to have been further discussed. --Cyclopiatalk 15:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - There are several reliable sources in the article itself, and the man appears to be a serial child sex offender. The media coverage may be a one off (i.e. at the trial) but the actual offense and claim to notability isn't a BLP1E situation. I guess that's what you meant in your nomination regarding the disputed definition of BLP1E. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 17:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:PERPETRATOR. Horrible crimes over many years, and they took place many years ago. Yet the few references for the crime or the criminal are only from a 5 day period. The crimes inspired no societal changes, no new laws, no books or films. Apparently the news media which gave it little coverage did not see it as significant as some Wikipedians do. The crimes may have taken place over a long period, but none was apparently considered notable enough for any coverage until the trial and conviction. Neither the perpetrator nor the victims apparently had any notability outside the crimes. Edison (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Edison said it best. No need to keep this page.--Prodigy96 (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]Keep The recent findings by Candlewicke change everything. They also make a very good argument. Since the trial would have been around the time this became public how could sources exist from when it was unknown?--Prodigy96 (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC))User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]
- It could be argued that "unknown crimes until the trial" equals "one incident." The additions by Candlewicke are preliminary parts of the same trial plus apparently someone beating up the perpetrator after his misdeeds came to be known. The early hearings of a trial are part of the same trial, hence the same event. Getting beaten up is generally not the stuff of which encyclopedias are made. Edison (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Here and here are examples which are not from the five day period and are not even from this year. Here is one from 2007. They exist, they just haven't been added yet. Since the trial would have been around the time this became public how could sources exist from when it was unknown? --candle•wicke 00:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Candlewick.--TrustMeTHROW! 01:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]- Keep. Are you going to delete Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, John Wayne Gacy and so on? A misinterpreted and overly aggressive "BLP1E" has become the tail that wags the dog, and it's time for it to be docked. Wnt (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a side note I dont think those articles have a problem with BLPE or PERP (Just my thought here though), and are quite different from this article and its concerns that have been raised as has been discussed above. Discussion should also be kept to this article alone and wether it should or shouldnt be deleted. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are differeces...--TrustMeTHROW! 22:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]
- Delete I think WP:BLP1E still applies. The event, in this case, can be said to be Curry's trial, which appears to be of only immediate interest (I can't imagine anyone taking an interest in this 15 years from now). In response to Wnt above, this guy does not at all compare to Eric Harris/Dylan Klebold and John Wayne Gacy. Harris and Klebold were involved in an event that's unquestionably significant on its own (BLP1E says bios are appropriate for "Individuals notable for well-documented events"). Gacy has had whole books written about him, and attracted far more attention than this guy. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep the events are notable and have been subject to mass media coverage.--LittleGordon 20:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC))User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]
- very strong delete there is no possible way to way to construct a complete biography of this man, only his crimes are notable, which therefore equals WP:ONEEVENT. As for the notability for perpetrators of crimes (WP:PERP), he doesn't fit any of the criteria. He isn't notable beyond the crime itself, he is not a renowned world figure, and it is not (and won't be) a historical event. ViridaeTalk 20:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Ottawa4ever, the spirit of WP:BLP1E would apply in this instance. JBsupreme (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per rʨanaɢ and the WP:BLP1E argument. —mattisse (Talk) 00:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Viridae. Alio The Fool 18:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The article reads like news reporting because it is news reporting. It is not encyclopedic because the underlying material is not encyclopedic. Abductive (reasoning) 09:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JForget 02:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chako Abeno
- Chako Abeno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. This is a non-notable and unsourced WP:BLP article. I searched Google News Archive and found 1 relevant match, which was a passing one-liner mention from activeanime.com. That's it. JBsupreme (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. References are available if you search by her name in Japanese, 阿倍野ちゃこ - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As creator or co-creator of
amore than one notable manga, she would on the face of it pass WP:CREATIVE. Since this information was already present when this AfD was proposed, wouldn't attempting to find sources per WP:BEFORE been the better route? But in any case, beyond that additional sourcing has been added, making this a keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Keep per Eastman, Quasirandom, and http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=%22Chako+Abeno%22 --Gwern (contribs) 17:10 31 January 2010 (GMT)
- Gwern, what is this custom search that you are citing? It says "Wikipedia RSs for manga and anime" but I am seeing tons of blogs? I am intrigued. JBsupreme (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome to 21st century, where evil vetted RS critics not only review manga on their Reliable Source manga/anime/comics websites but also from their very own personal blog. Saying that those critics are only experts when they write reviews in their RS websites and cease to be experts when they write reviews in their blog would be utter bullshit. From Wikipedia editors point of view this is hellish to use because the dogmatic blog = not RS restriction. --KrebMarkt 18:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What Kreb said. With a few exceptions, all the blogs being pulled up are either on the Wikiproject's list of online RSs, were cited in the recent discussions about a large network of allied reviewers who publish in said RSs, or are just showing up in the results because they haven't been filtered out. (The CSE has a large whitelist, and blacklist, but everything else is on a 'greylist' - it shows up if it scores high enough anyway.) If any of them are particularly bad and should never show up for any query, feel free to point them out to me. I cleaned up several of the Chako Abeno pages, but I didn't clean past page ~5 of results. --Gwern (contribs) 18:42 1 February 2010 (GMT)
- Gwern, what is this custom search that you are citing? It says "Wikipedia RSs for manga and anime" but I am seeing tons of blogs? I am intrigued. JBsupreme (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per above, and references from all the notable manga she has worked on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Reliable sources more than sufficient to pass the relevant notability bar, as demonstrated by Eastmain and Quasirandom. The existence of systemic bias is not an argument for deletion. Rebecca (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The body of work makes them notable. Dream Focus 20:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: There are reliable sources. - 23:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Konstantin Popov
- Konstantin Popov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There does not appear to be enough substance here to support a biographical article. He made the news only within the last few days because of his killing. However, there has been been no biographical coverage of this individual prior to this single event, and he was even described as a "little-known 47-year-old journalist who specialized in writing about economics" in one of the recent news articles about his death. Wikipedia:Notability says "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability." Dominic·t 08:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator's detailed rationale; the description of him as "little-known" is crucial. Nyttend (talk) 15:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - as per nom. Fails WP:N. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The killing may be notable enough for an article, maybe not, but I don't think the victim needs an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbox (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JForget 02:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cornish American
- Cornish American (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Essentially this is a WP:FRINGE/WP:FORK for Cornish nationalism (created by somebody of that political persuasion). No evidence that such an article is WP:Notable and its contents consists of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Nor is there any evidence that people from one county in England have especially high numbers of people in America, as to be worthy of an article. No other Encyclopedia in the world includes such an article. Delete as FORK political activism on the part of Joowww. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The Cornish identity is stronger than that of, say, East Sussex. Cornwall was once a Celtic nation with its own language, and "Cornish" can be an ethnic or linguistic group rather than just a county of origin. Emigrants from Cornwall to the United States or Australia would often have been miners in Cornwall seeking work as miners, and likely in some cases to settle in mining communities with other Cornish miners. The fact that Cornish nationalism exists, while Yorkshire nationalism does not, suggests that some Americans of Cornish descent may identify as Cornish-American rather than as English-American or British-American. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no native speakers of Cornish in Cornwall, let alone in the United States; the last native speaker died in the 1700s, before the United States existed. Also Cornwall was never a country but rather Dumnonnia was (as was Northumbria, Gwynedd, Clwyd and Gwent). But this is all besides the point "Cornish American" is itself WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as a concept, there is no presentation of evidence that "Cornish American" is a notable concept to be included in an Encyclopedia. There is no evidence that any of the examples listed in the article regarded themselves as "Cornish Americans". The concept is as OR as Gwynedd American or Northumbrian American. - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with the suggestion that "Cornish American" is WP:OR. There is objective evidence for the use of the term, such as the Cornish American Heritage Society at http://www.cousinjack.org/ , and other Cornish groups in the United States at http://www.pacornish.org/ http://milwaukeecornish.homestead.com/ http://www.califcornishcousins.org/ The Library of Congress catalog http://catalog.loc.gov has a listing for Cornish American, a serial in Grand Rapids, Mich. first published in 1982. As for linguistic differences between Cornish people and those in other parts of England, see West Country dialects. For more on Cornwall as an independent country, see Kingdom of Cornwall and Dumnonia. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no doubt that some people in the US highlight their Cornish roots, and that some of them have set up websites about it, but it's much less clear whether the phrase "Cornish American" is commonly used, and whether the concept of a "Cornish American" is at all notable. And, for info, you can buy t-shirts that say "Yorkshire American". --Nickhh (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with the suggestion that "Cornish American" is WP:OR. There is objective evidence for the use of the term, such as the Cornish American Heritage Society at http://www.cousinjack.org/ , and other Cornish groups in the United States at http://www.pacornish.org/ http://milwaukeecornish.homestead.com/ http://www.califcornishcousins.org/ The Library of Congress catalog http://catalog.loc.gov has a listing for Cornish American, a serial in Grand Rapids, Mich. first published in 1982. As for linguistic differences between Cornish people and those in other parts of England, see West Country dialects. For more on Cornwall as an independent country, see Kingdom of Cornwall and Dumnonia. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no native speakers of Cornish in Cornwall, let alone in the United States; the last native speaker died in the 1700s, before the United States existed. Also Cornwall was never a country but rather Dumnonnia was (as was Northumbria, Gwynedd, Clwyd and Gwent). But this is all besides the point "Cornish American" is itself WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as a concept, there is no presentation of evidence that "Cornish American" is a notable concept to be included in an Encyclopedia. There is no evidence that any of the examples listed in the article regarded themselves as "Cornish Americans". The concept is as OR as Gwynedd American or Northumbrian American. - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- 84user (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Further reading section and external links section prove that there is a Cornish ethnicity active in the United States. --Joowwww (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Following the logic above there should be pages for Mercian American, Northumbrian American and other of the pre-cursor kingdoms of England and for the various former kingdoms/regions of Europe etc. Bevo74 (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not about counties or ancient kingdoms, it is about the modern-day ethnicity. --Joowwww (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably the modern concept of Cornish ethnicity though is derived very much from the place, and its history, otherwise it's wholly random and invented? And that's the point that people are disputing - what makes Cornwall as an area of England and the UK, and its people, any different from other historical and contemporary areas in the country, all of which had, and to varying degrees still have, a distinctive regional identity? I'm not saying that's not the case, but it needs to be demonstrated substantively, and with reference to proper sources. In this case, we need reliable and serious evidence of the concept of "Cornish Americans". --Nickhh (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think the evidence provided (although not other WP pages per se - the Kingdom of Cornwall page in particular looks pretty woefully sourced for a lot of its assertions) would suggest that there is more leeway for the concept of "Cornish American" than there is for "Mercian American", or "Berkshire American", but at the same time it is not an officially accepted ethnic definition in the US like say "Irish American" is - Americans with family origins in Cornwall would be "English Americans" in US census categories, whether they liked it or not. Equally some of the sites pointed to above are of course self-published, and while they provide evidence of the existence of Cornish culture and self-identifying Cornish people in the US - and possibly the occasional use of the actual term "Cornish American" - they do not provide evidence of its notability. Are there any serious, reliable sources that use the term "Cornish American" and apply it to individuals? Beyond that, even if the page is kept, as noted on the article talk page, the page has problems. For example there's a real issue in respect of some of the people who have been listed as Cornish Americans, when there's zero evidence that they or anyone else describe themselves as such.--Nickhh (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Eastmain above says it well. DuncanHill (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: The Cornish immigrants to the US and their descendants self-identified as Cornish, and were regarded as a separate ethnic group apart from the English, especially in the mining communities where they settled. The article has validity and provides good information for Wikipedia readers. A definite keep.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and if the article's title has insufficient evidence in reliable sources, rename it. The article's references section lists a number of books discussing the migration history and identity issues of the group in question, which is the usual standard for deciding whether to keep or delete articles like this (not "they set up some websites" or "there's some famous people with ancestors from there", nor "other groups don't have such pages" or "area of origin is not unique"). cab (talk) 10:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, as per the reasoning of cab. - Zangar (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Botev Vratsa Forever
- Botev Vratsa Forever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fan club with 60 members and no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator, not notable.--Prodigy96 (talk) 06:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: All that I can find in Google is the article itself. I found zero sources in Google News and Google Books. Joe Chill (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, this could probably be speedied as db-group. Nyttend (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per previous editors. Not notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. This is a non notable club or organization. CSD A7 should apply. JBsupreme (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Viscendo
- Viscendo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Made-up word, obvious vehicle for WP:ARTSPAM of the company "Viscendo LLC," founded by Jody Basye. Borders (closely) on db-g11 as blatant advertising. User:Jodybasye contested my PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I agree with nominator, it is obvious spam for the company. Also probable conflict of interest given article creator's name is same as company domain registrant. Original speedy deletion tagging was correct in my opinion. -84user (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per WP:NEO. WP:PROMOTION and highly likely WP:COI.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:NEO. Unsigned by User:Joe Chill16:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everything that has been said above me. smithers - talk 18:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NEO and WP:ARTSPAM. Warrah (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DragonFable
- DragonFable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I deprodded this video game after I found one relatively short review on about.com I felt it deserves a discussion. (Besides, I see it has been brought to AfD before, so a prod was procedurally invalid.) Pcap ping 06:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 06:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 06:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, a review here (click "full review"). Pcap ping 06:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Taelus (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note- The rationale for the proposed deletion was unsourced article, questionable notability. --Taelus (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - could not find reliable sources to establish notability.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Does not appear to be sourceable or notable. I also suspect that that it qualifies for speedy deletion as a recreation of deleted material, since the previous two AfDs ended in clear consensus to delete. Perhaps an admin could check the previous versions to see if this is the case? Reyk YO! 23:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: http://www.netzwelt.de/download/7030-dragonfable.html its german and a description + small review of the game, can it be used as reference? GBK2010 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not familiar with this particular online magazine so I can't judge how reliable it is. But since it offers the game as a download I think it might have interest in promoting the game; that is, I doubt if it is an independent source, which we need to establish notability. Reyk YO! 02:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am familar with netzwelt. It's a fairly high profile German site (top 100 or so, see their "press" page, Alexa ranking, etc.) The reviews on their download pages are written by their staff, not copies of manufacturer's description; they have a dozen writers, see their impressum. I'm not very fond of reviews on download pages because they are otften quick, "filler" takes, although the netzwelt ones are better compared to others of this kind (Softonic, CNET download pages, etc.) But, there's far more coverage in the mmohut.com review I linked above. The netzwelt coverage is rather uninformative in comparison. Also, for a video game, I expect more depth of coverage than, say, for a Zip archiver or chat client, and the netzwelt page has just about the same for all of these; it's not a game focused site. Perhaps you can tell me why the mmohut.com review is unreliable in exchange. :-) Pcap ping 03:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not familiar with this particular online magazine so I can't judge how reliable it is. But since it offers the game as a download I think it might have interest in promoting the game; that is, I doubt if it is an independent source, which we need to establish notability. Reyk YO! 02:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: http://www.netzwelt.de/download/7030-dragonfable.html its german and a description + small review of the game, can it be used as reference? GBK2010 (talk) 02:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't speedy delete — I've checked the deleted revisions, and this is radically different. While this is a bit of a game guide, it's far more encyclopedic than the deleted versions, which are almost exclusively game guides. Nyttend (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect to Artix Entertainment, if it is kept. About.com - Andre Haas, again, etc? :> This is fairly feeble coverage, but enough for verifiability. MMOHut - I'm not happy about the reliability of this as a source, as I've detailed at WP:VG/RS. Netzwelt - Ran this through Babel. Reads like an advert, they have nothing critical to say, and the site is ran in association with AOL Advertising. Marasmusine (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pink Crust (Avril Lavigne album)
- Pink Crust (Avril Lavigne album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is of unverifiable nature, based on unreliable conjecture citing no sources, though a Google search results in unreliable sources using the possible-hoax name "Pink Crust". Possible disparagement toward artist. Correct, updated, and verified information on the fourth studio album can be found on the Avril Lavigne article. Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Looks like a hoax, at least according to The Boston Phoenix: "several news sources, among them Billboard, have reported that [Avril's] upcoming album will be titled Pink Crust. If you're thinking that that's just a little too gross to be true. . .you're correct. As near as I can figure, that title was posted as a joke on an Avril Lavigne fan site, and credulous publications reported it as fact." If it's not a hoax, it still violates WP:CRYSTAL, as no reliable sources confirm a track listing or release date. Gongshow Talk 06:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 06:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL--Prodigy96 (talk) 06:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HOAX. And although an article about a hoax can be legitimate, this does not remotely appear to be notable enough as a hoax/joke to warrant one. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 12:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete through being a Wp:HOAX. (Although I supppose it should have a little mention when her album gets an article.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:HOAX and WP:CRYSTALBALL. No reliable sources to confirm the track listing, nor for the release date, and several sources confirm this to be a hoax. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 21:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete I think we can see the outcome here.--TrustMeTHROW! 23:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]- Delete WP:CRYSTAL and possible hoax Alan - talk 23:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - even if it's not a WP:HOAX, WP:HAMMERTIME/WP:CRYSTAL applies. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MechQuest
- MechQuest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seemingly non-notable video game. Arguably its notability should be discussed here, rather than edit warred over the redirect to the company, which itself may be deleted soon. Pcap ping 05:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 05:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 06:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like the article was recreated in August 2008, after the previous AfD closed as delete a year earlier. Pcap ping 05:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A source: I see that there is "live view" (a little shorter than a full review) [23] on IGN. Pcap ping 05:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Redirect to company's article if it is kept. Game has no significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. The IGN Live View helps, but is not sufficient on its own. Marasmusine (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep i know its not a real argument but, 150 views in a month. So what really makes it non.noteable if around 150 people each month are searching/viewing this article in a month. Is it really sooo important that every videogame article which isnt about a game which sold x million times or which didnt get sequels gets deleted? GBK2010 (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right in that this is not an argument. Popularity is not notability - and neither are sales figures or having a sequel. Have a look at the general notability guideline to see the kind of thing we need to see. Marasmusine (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Well interesting... There isn't any significant coverage from reliable third party publications on this one. Maybe later. JBsupreme (talk) 18:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and salt again. Was deleted on notability and verifiability grounds in previous afd (and the GNG was in more or less its modern form at that time); current article is almost completely unsourced, and what is sourced is to the game's own website. I note that the speedy deletion request for the most recent repost was declined as "wasn't deleted at AfD", which is erroneous at best. Should not have been unsalted without going through DRV. —Korath (Talk) 07:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: No independent sources to support the notability; just another in the Artix Entertainment walled garden.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
609th Air Communications Squadron
- 609th Air Communications Squadron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This squadron, performing a ground combat service support function, is not notable. Any relevant material can either be placed at Shaw Air Force Base or 20th Fighter Wing. This nomination is in line with previously determined community consensus over separate non-combat ground forces' companies (a unit at the same level). See eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101st Chemical Company (United States) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States). Buckshot06 (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Buckshot06 (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A Google news search doesn't turn up any references about this unit and there's no reason to assume that its been the subject of significant offline coverage independent of the USAF. Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete despite the claim of winning the "Meritorious Unit Award". No clear evidence of notability.--Prodigy96 (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete does not appear from the article to be notable appears just to be a support unit. MilborneOne (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: per nomination; does not seem to be enough coverage to satisfy WP:N as it stands. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable. (GregJackP (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1625 Sheridan Road (Wilmette)
- 1625 Sheridan Road (Wilmette) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unremarkable building, no evidence of notability for design or history. Acroterion (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also 1616 Sheridan Road (Wilmette) and 1500 Sheridan Road (Wilmette). Same issues. Acroterion (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I like it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SecretName101 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome to Wikipedia, SecretName101. This is your first article, and I'm presuming that you've written about something that you're familiar with. However, I hope that you will agree that it wouldn't be practical if we had an article about every five story building in the world. We have to set limits on articles, based upon whether something is notable enough that it gets attention outside the local area. As the saying goes, "Everything gets published on Wikipedia, but not everything gets to stay on Wikipedia." Mandsford (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does the book you're referencing give any indication of something unique about this building (and 1500?). If so, you should include that in the article. What you want to do is to explain why this building is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia (and personal liking isn't enough: it must be historic or have a historic event associated with it, or be notable on the basis of its design). Who was the architect? Acroterion (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unremarkable building, none of the cited sources show the building's notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails WP:N. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Evil saltine (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all per above, unremarkable and not notable. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 05:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - while I applaud the author's enthusiasm, these buildings are unfortunately relatively unremarkable and thus fail our notability guidelines. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kae's File Manager
- Kae's File Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Zaroo independent sources for this, hic. Pcap ping 03:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 03:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm seeing a fair number of independent hits for this, but not from anything that could be considered reliable. Note that the article's primary author is the software's developer. —Korath (Talk) 03:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No significant coverage found. Nothing to indicate notability.--Michig (talk) 12:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per everyone. JBsupreme (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Couldn't find any WP:Reliable Sources and the article doesn't provide anything to prove otherwise. Usually when GNews returns 0 results it is a pretty easy decision --FaceMash (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - nothing on Google news; doesn't seem to have the widespread coverage by reliable third parties that is required for inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Atmospheric rock
- Atmospheric rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Improperly "citing" a single album as evidence for a genre's existence does not a legitimate genre make. C1k3 (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I filled in the stub from a redlink, if i remember right. The example is just an example, of course, but Google reveals a fair amount of usage of the term as a genre by bands, review sites, online stores, etc. This article, Post Rock 101, seems to recognize it as a subgenre alongside art rock and math rock. I'm not sure exactly how much sourcing would meet the threshold of notability, but if enough can't be found, all the articles linking to this one need to be adjusted too, at least. —Piet Delport (talk) 2010-01-31 05:35
- Delete, another sub-subgenre with hopelessly muddled inclusion criteria. Hairhorn (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Like "brutal death metal," no sourcing = no article.--WaltCip (talk) 16:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - not quite a case of WP:NEO, I don't think, but I believe that the spirit of that guideline is equally applicable here. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge and redirect. Jayjg (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Red and Blue (EP)
- Red and Blue (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an EP by Stefani Germanotta, recorded a couple years before she found fame (pardon the pun) as Lady Gaga. The EP was apparently not released—the article claims a "handful of copies were sold at New York area shows"—and the only mentions I'm seeing for this are in fansites/forums, torrent links, etc. I can not find significant coverage in independent reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow Talk 02:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 02:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator's reasoning.--TrustMeTHROW! 03:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]- Merge and redirect to Lady Gaga discography, surely someone looking at the discography would find interest in this. J04n(talk page) 20:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- note: I merged info already feeling that it is relevant no matter how this discussion goes. If no kept, I believe the redirect is appropriate. J04n(talk page) 21:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, redirect. Sorafune +1 22:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect - there is some historical interest, making J04n's merge a good idea. Now that it's done, redirect to the discography article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect not notable enough for it's own article (plus, not enough context to support it) Alan - talk 23:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't know if anyone noted, but it's impossible to merge any kind of content in this article, since it's filled with original researches, backed up with one unreliable source (a fan forum). Said that, Redirect wouldn't be the right thing to do, because neither Lady Gaga or Lady Gaga discography (the most probably pages for redirect) presents nothing related to this EP. So the best thing to do would be just Delete. Sparks Fly 16:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did merge the info to Lady Gaga discography and the info I added was deleted about 5 hours later, so I do agree with Sparks Fly, if there is no destination delete. J04n(talk page) 22:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and WP:SALT both this and Red and Blue (Lady Gaga EP). How many times will this crap be created and we have to go through Afd? There's absolutely nothing in the article that warranties inclusion anywhere in WP at all. I'm really getting irritated by all the fancruft going on in this artist's pages. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We can't pick and chose what is important. A release by a notable artist usually always passes notability. It may not deserve a page, but it shouldn't be ignored altogether. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirectas not notable to WP:NALBUMS. Salting would be a mistake as discussion would be difficult to find and result in article being created with different name all over again - exactly the thing salting is suppose to avoid but in practice has the reverse effect. SunCreator (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - One sentence with WP:RS into discography. SunCreator (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge basic information into discography and biography. I don't care if people are removing it once you add it. Add it back and slap them with a warning. The fact that a singer had a previous release is no doubt notable. We don't need an in depth analysis, but a mention saying she released an EP before becoming popular is very much related to her career. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephen, this might have been mildly notable if some reliable source would have been found. However, adding a forum is definitely a no-no and hence the article too. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. One or two sentences about it would be ideal but with not one WP:RS anywhere to be found even that limited amount is not sensible. SunCreator (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Source the liner notes. It also seems to be for sale as a digital download on amazon[24]. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, yeah, I have to admit you have a point, the liner is a WP:RS, do we know if anyone actually have a liner note? This EP is like golddust I would imagine! Anyway, I will amend my vote. SunCreator (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Source the liner notes. It also seems to be for sale as a digital download on amazon[24]. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. One or two sentences about it would be ideal but with not one WP:RS anywhere to be found even that limited amount is not sensible. SunCreator (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stephen, this might have been mildly notable if some reliable source would have been found. However, adding a forum is definitely a no-no and hence the article too. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to Lady Gaga discography, this is an important part of her history that people should know about. SoCal L.A. (talk) 20:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Should be mentioned in the discography, certainly. Can reliable sources be found? I remember when a song of hers, Christmas Tree (Lady Gaga song), was nominated for AFD and it was in a terrible state; I found a load of sources and it's now a decent article. Will look for sources now. Until then I say keep album by notable artist. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 16:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JForget 02:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smuxi
- Smuxi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been tagged as needing sources for a long time and none have been presented even after extensive editing. Miami33139 (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 04:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- [25] and [26] have been in the article since the day after you requested sources ("since last November" is a long time?), and are independent, reliable, and substantive. What are your objections to them? —Korath (Talk) 04:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We have to be grateful he didn't prod it, as he did with klibc. Pcap ping 17:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The edit summary that replaced the notability tag said "(Don't agree tuxradar and toms hardware convey notability. Both of those are giant indiscriminate lists containing mass amounts of products. It doesn't equate significant coverage)" Miami33139 (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw Crossmr's edit summary, yes. I was hoping you had objections of your own, because his doesn't hold water. The Tuxradar source reviews only one IRC client, and the only other product reviewed that's even close is Gwibber, a microblogging client. Tom's Hardware reviews seven IRC clients, of 30 products total. Literally hundreds of IRC clients have been released; reviewing one, or seven, can't reasonably be considered indiscriminate. As for the complaint that they review "mass amounts of products", if anything, it adds to the sources' reliability. Keep. —Korath (Talk) 07:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, even if somewhat weakly. Covered in Tom's Hardware, at more length in TuxRadar, which is an online publication owned by Linux Format, and also in the print issue of that magazine [27]. All of these sources were present in the article at the time of nomination. Granted, being reviewed in an article on more obscure apps (TuxRadar) is surely not an indication of popularity or importance. I find it ironic, but not surprising however, that the hardcore deletionists when presented with arguments that something is important, immediately argue that notability is all that matters, and when presented with significant coverage in WP:RS, they argue that the topic is simply not notable (as in popular or important) because it is discussed at some length among other not well-known topics. Besides, if the round-up in Tom's Hardware was as indiscriminate as some say, we'd be able to reference any IRC software on this site from it, including the whole Comparison of IRC clients. Clearly that's not the case given the number of IRC clients that got deleted. Pcap ping 03:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per above, coverage in Tom's Hardware and elsewhere sufficient to prove notability. Dream Focus 13:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 02:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enhanced Programmable ircII Client
- Enhanced Programmable ircII Client (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete. Well, at least I've heard of this one, it has that going for it. I searched Google News Archives and Google Books, with no success at finding substantial coverage from reliable third party publications. I tried queries "Enhanced Programmable ircII Client" and "EPIC +IRC". JBsupreme (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 02:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: All that I can find in Google is download sites. I found zero sources in Google News and Google Books. Joe Chill (talk) 13:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I found this, which isn't zero, but not enough to meet the general notability guideline either. —Korath (Talk) 07:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. This is probably an established client in the Linux IRC niche, e.g. called "well-known" and "classic" in a couple of blog round-ups [29] [30], and the developer of EPIC5 was interviewed on ircjunkies [31], but I don't think it meets WP:GNG yet. Pcap ping 08:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - no Google news hits, and there doesn't seem to be enough significant coverage by reliable third parties to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep Passes WP:Prof (WP:NACD) CTJF83 chat 20:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Linda Harasim
- Linda Harasim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Typical academic CV - written articles, edited and contributed to multi-author books. Doesn'tseem particularly notable. Scott Mac (Doc) 01:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 01:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 01:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the nomination which seems to be spot on. JBsupreme (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear Keep. GS cites are 1203, 430, 428, 398, 351, 195 etc. etc. h index = 23. Clear pass of WP:Prof #1. Poorly researched nominations waste the time of editors. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm afraid I don't understand a word of what you've said? What's a GS cite? Yes I researched this. Please indicate why she's notable?--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not part of an editor's duties to explain Wikipedia's WP:Prof policy to people who can read it for themselves. Advice often given to newcomers to a topic is to lurk around for a while to learn the conventions that prevail before jumping in as an editor. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Notability guidelines are not policies there are guidelines. They tell people "what usually tends to happen on AfD", they in no sense disctate what ought to happen. There is no need for anyone here to pay the blindest bit of attention to them. I don't. I use my own judgement.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not part of an editor's duties to explain Wikipedia's WP:Prof policy to people who can read it for themselves. Advice often given to newcomers to a topic is to lurk around for a while to learn the conventions that prevail before jumping in as an editor. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm afraid I don't understand a word of what you've said? What's a GS cite? Yes I researched this. Please indicate why she's notable?--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- She means the citation counts reported by a Google scholar search. These numbers are a (not very good, but easily measured) way of quantifying the impact a scholar's work has had on other scholars, and in this case they are well above what has usually been considered here to be at the passing level for WP:PROF #1. For instance, over 1200 other published academic works have cited her book Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online in some way or another. No doubt many of these citations are trivial passing mentions but very likely not all of them are. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As Xxanthippe says, she clearly passes WP:PROF #1, and there seems to be plenty of news material in major international news publishers to use to source an article about here. Much of it involves quoting her as an expert (WP:PROF #7; see note 14) but others have more substantive material about her; this Australian Broadcast Network piece is an interview with her, and this Times Higher Education piece is about an incident that led to her resignation from TeleLearning, for instance. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article doesn not indicate notability. I'm not sure you've indicated anything remarkable here. Most accademics in this field get called as witnesses, I imagine. None of these article give her more than a passing mention, in the same way they'd mention a policy inspector who investigated a case.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this some strange new meaning of the word "none" with which I'm unfamiliar? My comment above called out two specific articles for which the coverage of her is clearly more than a passing mention. As for "the article does not indicate notability": we are not supposed to say things like "She fulfils the Wikipedia standards for academic notability by virtue of her high citation count and h-index." within the text of an article; see WP:SELFREF. There is a paragraph discussing her research accomplishments; you are expected to deduce for yourself that these are the things she is considered notable for. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Her profile in the peer reviewed journal The Technology Source (ISSN 1532-0030) is not a passing mention. She has published three books at MIT Press and Praeger Publishers (notable and respected publishing houses).
With your notability standards, we should delete 95% of this project :)This is not necessary. --Vejvančický (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Two of those works she edited, the other she co-authored - these are very typical things for an accademic to do. Even most junior lecturers do this type of thing. There is nothing remarkable here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You could probably make a good argument for deleting 95% of the least notable BLPs. *** Crotalus *** 14:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Widely published academic; David Eppstein's sources clearly demonstrate notability. Rebecca (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I see no evidence that this person is more notable than the average tenured college professor. Consequently, I see no reason to keep around an underutilized, underwatched BLP that is a vandalism and liability magnet. *** Crotalus *** 17:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is like arguing against articles on movie actors because the typical average movie actor acts in movies, or arguing against national presidents because the typical average president runs a country. Yes, typical college professors write books and other forms of research publication. However, it is completely false that most college professors have publication records demonstrating as high a level of impact (notability, in the form of other academics taking note of her work). That's why we have WP:PROF: to set standards that distinguish the notable professors from the average ones. By that standard, she passes. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability guidelines do not "set standards". They are supposed to try to reflect the standards that the community tends to go with at AFD. They are descriptive and no prescriptive. The fact that an article passes then (if this indeed dones) just says articles like this tend to pass - it is not really an arguement for keeping this. I personally prefer to make up my own mind and not read notability statements, others may do as they think best.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is like arguing against articles on movie actors because the typical average movie actor acts in movies, or arguing against national presidents because the typical average president runs a country. Yes, typical college professors write books and other forms of research publication. However, it is completely false that most college professors have publication records demonstrating as high a level of impact (notability, in the form of other academics taking note of her work). That's why we have WP:PROF: to set standards that distinguish the notable professors from the average ones. By that standard, she passes. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Xxanthippe, clearly meets WP:PROF #1, with quite high citation rates. Per David Eppstein and Vejvančický, meets WP:GNG.John Z (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Xxanthippe, David Eppstein. I gently remind the nominator of WP:BEFORE, particularly item 9. RayTalk 07:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And can gently I remind you of WP:AGF? I did look at the sources, and still did not, and do not, consider this to be more than a typical accademic.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep on the basis of meeting WP:PROF, and, for those who prefer to use the GNG when possible, that also. Two books by MIT press is a major accomplishment, and would probably meet WP:AUTHOR as well. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per... well, everybody. Obviously notable academic. LotLE×talk 00:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Jeff Chapman (Georgia politician). Cirt (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chapman Waste Disposal
- Chapman Waste Disposal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A waste disposal company. Having a notable founder does not make a company notable. The only external links were spam for the founder, not the company. Sgroupace (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. An earlier version had references but was deleted as an expired prod. Could someone please restore the history so that those references could be evaluated? - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I've restored the revisions that were deleted previously through proposed deletion per Eastmain's request. There were never any references in the article, the only difference between the article now and when it was deleted was a corporation stub template. I did a search for references before deleting it when it was proposed for deletion and found nothing significant to suggest that it met our notability requirements, so I still endorse its deletion. -- Atama頭 17:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Jeff Chapman (Georgia politician). As company itself does not seem notable, better off as a subsection of the founder's article. Turgan Talk 13:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't even think the founder, Jeff Chapman qualifies as notable, nor do most of the persons for whom articles have been created as part of someone's project in Georgia gubernatorial election, 2010 to write a separate page for every person who has declared an interest in that office. Now that's something in need of waste disposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 01:07, 31 January 2010- Comment. Jeff Chapman (Georgia politician) is clearly notable as a member of the Georgia Senate. I expected to find more coverage of this company, especially since waste disposal companies sometimes get into conflicts with government environmental agencies, or are mentioned in controversies relating to government contracting practices. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Eastmain is correct, per WP:POLITICIAN, on Mr. Chapman. I tend to agree that most waste disposal companies are not notable in an of themselves (can anyone here recall the name written on the side of the truck that hauls away their garbage each week?) and that the inherent notability of an owner doesn't get passed on to in King Midas fashion to everything the owner touches. Mandsford (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to the guy that started the company. If someone decides to expand it there it can always be broken back out. But there's not much there really except that it was a company, it was started by him, and acquired. I think that can be includedin his article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. 50 Google hits. Zero News, Books or Scholar hits. Also, there is nothing whatsoever encyclopedic to say about this business. Abductive (reasoning) 09:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete in accordance with WP:CSD#A7. There are notable waste companies, but they are the subject of significant coverage in accordance with WP:GNG. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Jeff Chapman (Georgia politician). It's a plausible search term, however we already discuss the company in his bio article so there's really nothing to merge. I can't imagine those arguing in favor of deletion would have a problem with leaving this as a redirect, so I think that's the best option for the closing admin. If there has been a problem with this article being recreated in the past we could salt the redirect—the company was bought out in 1995 so there's really no way we're ever going to have an article about it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. This is a very unlikely search term, since the total absense of Google News/Books/Scholar hits, and that Mr Chapman's article itself had less than 100 page views back in Dec. Nearly all politicians have either been businesspeople or attorneys or both prior to running for office, and ownership of a company so minor that it doesn't even get mentioned in local papers should not be given even a redirect. Abductive (reasoning) 01:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Unlikely yes, of course, but "plausible" is quite a different matter. Redirects are cheap, as they say, and we generally retain them if there's a possibility it could be useful. There are any number of reasons someone might type "Chapman Waste Disposal" into the search box, even if it only happens once in a blue moon (since Chapman is apparently running for Governor there might be more interest in him and his history). A redirect does no harm, and I suppose there's a chance we could stick some small tidbit from the article and merge it into Chapman's bio. WP:R#KEEP suggests maintaining a redirect is worthwhile while WP:R#DELETE doesn't have a reason for deletion that would apply here. It's pretty trivial whether we delete or turn this into a redirect, but I think the latter makes more sense. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Jeff Chapman (Georgia politician) per Bigtimepeace (talk · contribs)'s arguments that this is a plausible redirect that could aid a reader in receiving information about the waste disposal company. Cunard (talk) 06:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. nomination withdrawl - oops JForget 00:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gregory Magarshak
- Gregory Magarshak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The subject does not meet the notability criteria for a musician (WP:MUSN. The article was written by the subject, and none of the references/external links meet the requirements for a reliable source WP:RS. The subject is also not notable as a software developer or entrepreneur WP:N.
I am not a New Yorker or a music aficionado, So I do not know how unusual it is for a child to appear at Carnegie Hall to perform his own work with a professional orchestra. It does not match the WP:MUSN criteria, but if we can find reliable sources that assert that this is unusual and that cite this particular performance, then we can establish notability. If someone can chime in and say "no, this happens a lot," then it's not notable.While looking for sources, also check "Gregori" in addition to "Gregory."
Arch dude (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It hardly ever happens that a child appears at Carnegie hall and performs his work with a professional orchestra. Magarshak was the youngest person to do this as far as I know, the youngest pianist to perform on that level. You can ascertain the notability at http://magarshak.com/piano where several TV programs and magazines are referenced. For example, in the article from "Daily News Magazine", "the youngest person ever to enter Juilliard on a scholarship". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.143.76.29 (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This may very well be true. but we cannot depend on magarshak.com. we need to use reliable sources: see WP:RS for an explanation. Please note: it is perfectly acceptavle to cite the Daily News, even if we cannot access the article online. It is NOT acceptable to cite your web site, for two separate reasons: first, it is not a "reliable source," by our very narrow technical definition. Second, it is a web site that is improperly providing unauthorized copies of copyrighted work. Wikipedia has a prohibition against citing such sites. So, to prove notability, you need to do the following:
- Cite the Daily News article directly, not your web site. It is not necessary for the cited material to be online, but it does make it easier if you can find it online. (I can help you format your citation: Please post a note on my talk page if you need help)
- Cite at least one additional "reliable source."
- Make sure that at least two reliable sources (can include the above) comment on this specific performance. Note that a simple performance announcement is insufficient: we need a full article that spends at least a few paragraphs on you specifically.
- Make sure that at least two reliable sources (can include the above) indicate that this is unusual.
- -Arch dude (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This may very well be true. but we cannot depend on magarshak.com. we need to use reliable sources: see WP:RS for an explanation. Please note: it is perfectly acceptavle to cite the Daily News, even if we cannot access the article online. It is NOT acceptable to cite your web site, for two separate reasons: first, it is not a "reliable source," by our very narrow technical definition. Second, it is a web site that is improperly providing unauthorized copies of copyrighted work. Wikipedia has a prohibition against citing such sites. So, to prove notability, you need to do the following:
- Alright, so let's cite the Daily News and New York Newsday directly. Or, you can use the actual Carnegie Hall stagebill, which talks directly about how unusual the event is. The Russian article talks about it in no uncertain terms ("unprecedented", etc.) but it's in Russian so I don't know if that's acceptable. I would definitely appreciate your help in formatting it, if you could spare a bit of time. Also ... those stills on the site are from programs like "A Musical Encounter" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307785/) where there was an entire episode devoted to this. I just don't know where to find it online but if you looked through the series you'd see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.125.45 (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cite and Keep: I, the original deletion nominator, am changing my implicit !vote from "delete" to "keep", assuming that the outcome of the referencing effort is positive. See my talk page for details. If there is a process for withdrawing an AfD nomination, then we should do that. I would still appreciate another opinion: I almost never participate in AfD and I may not be doing this right. Basically we still have a COI newbie, but I intend to mitigate this by monitoring the article. -Arch dude (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dalton Boutte
- Dalton Boutte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Formerly unreferenced BLP for which references are thin on the ground.
Does not seem to be generally notable; news mentions seem to be mainly passing references rather than in-depth coverage (VP sells stock! Hold the front page!) and most of the information in here is completely uncited. pablohablo. 10:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate as been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- pablohablo. 11:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, notability not established. --208.59.93.238 (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
have to say delete from reading this, I can't see any notability at all.Ikip 23:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Forbes listing
- Business week listing
- google news, 30 hits
Since I was invited here, I will say "neutral"- Merge with Schlumberger Limited (NYSE: SLB), the world's largest oilfield services corporation with operations in approximately 80 countries. This gentleman is the vice-president there. Ikip 23:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included on the , Schlumberger and WesternGeco page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
- Delete — puff-piece by single-edit account. Happy editing, Jack Merridew 23:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a WP:BLP article which does not have the coverage necessary to substantiate a biographical article at this time. JBsupreme (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Delete as per the above. Wikipeterproject (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not even seeing a claim of notability here. Rebecca (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JForget 02:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ty Russell
- Ty Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
*Delete The article says Russell is circumcised and reportedly has a 7-inch penis.. Need I say more about the encylcopedic value (or lack thereof) of the article?--Prodigy96 (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He passes WP:ARTIST #3 as he stars in at least 29 published films (a significant body of work, any could be used as a verifiable source). In 1995 he won a Gay VN award for best sex scene, so he also meets the PORNBIO requirements. Nominations for deletion are not intended to replace "improvement needed" tags and PORNBIO is not an excuse to a purge gay pornstars from Wikipedia when their body of work is self-evident. As for value, this is part of hard to find gay history, of rather more encyclopaedic value than a separate article for every fictional character from Avatar and to remove it as unencyclopaedic because of a mention of "penis" is effective censorship. Ash (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a source for the Gay VN award? I suppose that would help this meet WP:PORNBIO but as of right now this is an unsourced BLP article which most certainly should be deleted. (!!!) JBsupreme (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, go to http://gayvnawards.avn.com/noms/pastwinners.html to verify. Articles should not get deleted for being unsourced if there a reasonable prospect of sources being found and added at some future point. Ash (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a source for the Gay VN award? I suppose that would help this meet WP:PORNBIO but as of right now this is an unsourced BLP article which most certainly should be deleted. (!!!) JBsupreme (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Ash. There should be more in the way of non-trivial coverage for this person, but apparently meets some level of notability criteria as a past recipient of this 1995 award. JBsupreme (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep because he won the mentioned 1995 award, which does help to establish some notability for inclusion.--TrustMeTHROW! 21:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:ARTIST. Ground Zero | t 21:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:PORNBIO. Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Snow Keep, as ASH's reasoning is compelling, logical, and per guideline. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep, another of nom's poorly researched AfDs forcing others to clean-up this disruption to the project. Subject meets WP:Pornbio - "1993 Adam Gay Video "Dave" Awards winner, "Best sex scene"; Abduction II: Conflict from Falcon Studios; 1995 AVN Award (pre-GayVN Awards) winner, "Best duo scene"". -- Banjeboi 11:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Absolutely no evidence has been advanced at this time to rebut the nominator's assertion that this article fails to meet the general guideline for notability. Nothing has been done to meet the requirements of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy in regard to sourcing. BLP is a core policy and not negotiable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per GayAVN award satisfying pornbio. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Carrigan
- Paul Carrigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete per nom.--TrustMeTHROW! 03:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Strike blocked sock contribution. Ash (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep This is a terrible nomination, obviously no effort has been made to check notability before raising for deletion in a drive against gay porn stars. He was notable enough to act as himself in the spoof film Full Frontal (2001). He directed over 30 porn films. He starred in over 250 published films (perhaps the most well known are Underground (1997 with Jeff Stryker) and Three Brothers (1998)). As a director he created a whole genre of gay porn wrestling films. Obviously the article needs more references (few sources from the 1990s are on-line) but it is also obvious that due to his impact on the adult film market, he meets WP:ARTIST, WP:GNG, WP:PORNBIO and that there is every prospect of reliable sources being found due to sheer size of his body of work. Ash (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- There's no evidence of him passing WP:GNG, and he clearly doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. He doesn't pass WP:ARTIST as his work hasn't "been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Epbr123 (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should take a break and have a nice cup of tea? I thought that being one of the most prolific porn stars of his generation would make it pretty obvious that he is notable for this reason alone. PORNBIO is a guide, not a bible. If you need an award to add, start with his lead role in "The Hills have Bi's", it was winner of Best Bi Picture & Best Sex Comedy at the 1996 Gay Erotic Video Awards. Ash (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no evidence of him passing WP:GNG, and he clearly doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. He doesn't pass WP:ARTIST as his work hasn't "been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Epbr123 (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Keep per body of work that meets WP:ENT and WP:PORNBIO. Send to cleanup. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does he pass WP:ENT or WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Per career and significant roles, how can it possibly be perceived that does he not? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you be more specific about how his career meets the notability criteria? Epbr123 (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps more helpful in discussiong your concerns if you could explain how you believe his career and significant roles do not. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you be more specific about how his career meets the notability criteria? Epbr123 (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Per career and significant roles, how can it possibly be perceived that does he not? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How does he pass WP:ENT or WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Per Ash, and WP:Pornbio - "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre," This is simply yet another in roughly 20-30 recent AfD's against gay pornographic actors. -- Banjeboi 11:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Which of his contributions are unique? Epbr123 (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- There are very few comments on this page and only two attributed to Ash. I'll allow you to do your own work. -- Banjeboi 12:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Which of his contributions are unique? Epbr123 (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete fails pornbio, bio, all of the relevant notability guidelines for people.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails pornbio and gng for me. I haven't seen any concrete evidence that verifies his notability. Mainly arguments based on being prolific which was rejected as a criteria when PORNBIO was being developed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Absolutely no evidence has been advanced at this time to rebut the nominator's assertion that this article fails to meet the general guideline for notability. Nothing has been done to meet the requirements of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy in regard to sourcing. BLP is a core policy and not negotiable. [Yes, this is a cut and paste.] Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for a cut & paste opinion, in this case you do not appear to be basing your opinion on the sources actually included in this article. Ash (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Those aren't sources in the WP:N/WP:BLP sense. They support trivial assertions of fact. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for a cut & paste opinion, in this case you do not appear to be basing your opinion on the sources actually included in this article. Ash (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as above, in spite of the fact that the fellow's contributions in pornography are unique; everyone's DNA is unique, after all. Mostly it's mixed in a cup by a prop specialist. Jack Merridew 08:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the world was that supposed to mean? Please, please (please!) tell me that isn't a 2 Girls 1 Cup reference... Stillwaterising (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment there appears to be a recent rush of delete opinions either exclusively based on PORNBIO or strongly based on it (from the names of the contributors, likely to be a result of the link I included at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors). In this case Carrigan is an established film director for the specialist genre of erotic wrestling, please take that into account as PORNBIO is for actors not directors. I would also like to point out how blunt a criteria PORNBIO is by contrasting Corrigan's significant impact to the field, and his notability for being the second most credited actor in the history gay pornography, with Christopher Ashlee who amazingly passes PORNBIO because he was once named (along with seven other actors) in a group scene award in a 2009 Grabby but is notable for absolutely nothing else and has been credited with just 2 not-particularly-notable films. Ash (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the claim that he is "one of the most prolific porn stars of his generation" do not appear to be verifiable through any reliable sources, nor has Carrigan himself apparently received any significant coverage in any reliable, third-party sources. Only a few of his roles have even managed to be verified, which could be seen as a severe WP:BLP violation to associate him with other works and make claims about his career without quality reliable sources. Despite what some folk slike to claim, WP:BIO does NOT trump WP:N. If there are no sources, there are no sources. Ash claims there may be offline sources, but none have been produced. No objection to userifying until such sources are found, but as is, it should be deleted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- Please do not misrepresent my statement. I stated above that "there is every prospect of reliable sources being found due to sheer size of his body of work". It may not have been your intent, but your phrasing reads like an allegation that I was faking the existence of sources. I encourage you to consider the options explained in WP:ATD, particularly as I suggest that the current level of sources in the article are enough to avoid deletion as being unsourced (not that this is ever a good sole reason to delete as we would automatically delete all stub articles). Ash (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I find that 250+ (or 265+) acting credits and 30 director credits to be sufficient in establishing a notable career. --Stillwaterising (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I was unfamiliar with WP:pornbio, so I've had a little read through:
- The films he was in won the awards, not him, so fail.
- No mention of nominations, fail.
- Is not a Playboy playmate, fail.
- Hasn't started a trend, nor starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature, nor is in the hall of fame, fail.
- Has only featured ONCE in mainstream media, fail. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nick Harmon
- Nick Harmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep How tiresome. Automatically converted contested PRODs to deletions without bothering to do any checking of the facts appears to be pushing an agenda. He passes WP:ARTIST #3 as he stars in at least 27 published films (a significant body of work) including the classic "Boy, Oh Boy". Nominations for deletion are not intended to replace "improvement needed" tags and PORNBIO is not an excuse to purge gay pornstars from Wikipedia when their body of work is self-evident. Ash (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't pass WP:ARTIST as his work hasn't "been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Epbr123 (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aren't you pushing this too hard? With 27 films including classics that are still being sold today (over two decades later), the guidance of WP:ATD should have been followed here. The fact that sources have not been added yet is not of itself a rationale for deletion and does not mean that reviews of his work were not published and the fact that his films exist, were popular, were featured and reviewed in many gay publications (in the 80s/90s) is not seriously in doubt. I'll make the point again, if this were early horror films this article would not be put up for deletion. Ash (talk) 12:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He doesn't pass WP:ARTIST as his work hasn't "been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Epbr123 (talk) 10:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per career meeting WP:ENT and WP:PORNBIO. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Concur with Ash, this is old - "by the mid-1990s, Harmon had established his own web-based production company specializing in fetish-themed films" actors turned producers in niche genres meet WP:Pornbio. -- Banjeboi 11:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's hardly a "unique contribution to a specific pornographic genre". Epbr123 (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's your opinion but I find your judgement in this area to be inaccurate whereas Ash has actually worked to add content and sources you have steadily worked to delete and destroy regardless of a subject's notability. -- Banjeboi 12:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was one of the main contributors to WP:PORNBIO, and Nick Harmon doesn't pass it. No-one has added more content to pornography articles than me, while other's contributions have been questionable at best. Epbr123 (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let me be more specific - in all the work from you and that other editor I've only seen you working to delete content whereas I've seen Ash actually improving content and in one case proposing a deletion which was denied by consensus. It may be that you have done some good work in the past but I feel their editing is more in keeping with the spirit and letter of editing here. Of course, that is simply my opinion. Hopefully my impression of your work will dramatically improve. -- Banjeboi 12:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was one of the main contributors to WP:PORNBIO, and Nick Harmon doesn't pass it. No-one has added more content to pornography articles than me, while other's contributions have been questionable at best. Epbr123 (talk) 12:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's your opinion but I find your judgement in this area to be inaccurate whereas Ash has actually worked to add content and sources you have steadily worked to delete and destroy regardless of a subject's notability. -- Banjeboi 12:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's hardly a "unique contribution to a specific pornographic genre". Epbr123 (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Absolutely no evidence has been advanced at this time to rebut the nominator's assertion that this article fails to meet the general guideline for notability. Nothing has been done to meet the requirements of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy in regard to sourcing. BLP is a core policy and not negotiable. The number of films someone has appeared in is irrelevant. Only non-trivial coverage in reliable sources constitutes notability. There appears to be no recognition here of the fact we have policies, let alone any understanding of what they are. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the lack of sufficient coverage in reliable sources. This is a biography of a living person, so great care must be taken to ensure that the information is sourced. At this moment, the article contains only one source — a video produced by the subject. This does not establish notability. Regardless of whether or not the subject passes WP:ARTIST (the guideline page says, meeting one or more [of these criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included), the article should be deleted for failing Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Verifiability, two of the most important polices on Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was No consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mohammad Gulzar Saifi
- Mohammad Gulzar Saifi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A whopping total of 26 Google hits for this name. 161 for just "Gulzar Saifi", which is a redirect to this page. Other than that redirect, only two real Wiki pages actually link here--one for the film The Final Inch and one for the director of the film. Clearly not notable as an individual, although the film (of which he is reportedly the protagonist) certainly is. Most of this "biography" is actually information about the film. I recommend copying the small amount of biographical information from Mohammad Gulzar Saifi into the article The Final Inch and deleting with or without redirect. (A note: The user who started this article is currently unable to participate in this discussion due to the terms of an ArbCom decision. If it is felt that my nomination of the article at this time is inappropriate, please postpone it until he is able to contribute directly to the conversation.) Bueller 007 (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Nominator is suggesting merging, which is not a deletion. See WP:Merge and delete. Taemyr (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not necessarily suggesting merging, although I would be satisfied with this outcome. I would like a decision about whether the article should be kept at all---hence I said "delete with or without redirect". Google hits seem to suggest that the subject of the article is completely non-notable---from what I understand it's not even been well confirmed that he is actually the protagonist in the movie---and therefore he may be unworthy even of having his info copied to The Final Inch. And if he is truly the protagonist, the meagre amount of information we have about him could be copied to the page about the movie, but that does not necessarily mean that a redirect page should be used. I am indeed asking for opinion about deletion of this page, therefore WP:Merge and delete does not apply. Bueller 007 (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 01:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to The Final Inch. There are plenty of references here - enough to verify the article - but not enough to establish notability independent from the film. I think this is basically a WP:BLP1E case, and he would be best covered by being merged into the article on the film. Robofish (talk) 12:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Silex Flash CMS
- Silex Flash CMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Reference review:
- Official site: Reliable, Not independent of the subject.
- Sourceforge: Reliable, Trivial.
- GNU- Reliable, Trivial.
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak deleteWeak keep. Evidence by Pohta ce-am pohtit looks like enough for notability now. I still would like the article to be cleaned up to avoid reading so much like advertisement, but the SourceForge and O'Reilly coverage is independent. Looks too much like a vanity article. But a 3rd party source or two could convince me otherwise. LotLE×talk 01:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Comment. It was FOSS of the month in July on SourceForge. It has a blurb in this O'Reilly blog. It's also included in this round-up but it's not a critical review. Also covered here, which a soft of company blog. Pcap ping 01:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. I was also able to find two short good/bad commentaries here and here, another non-critical round-up here, but they are all on pretty obscure sources. Pcap ping 01:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The nature of the sources used to show notability necessary depends on an article's subject matter. Mere "obscurity" should not cause sources to be discounted, if they are considered to be reliable. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC) — Werner Heisenberg (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy.[reply]
- Actually the prominence of the sources matters, because we'd have every topic from a college newspaper here otherwise (like every student who had a paragraph written about him, and so forth). In this case all the sources blog-like, and with the exception of the O'Reilly one are self-published. The O'Reilly blog only reproduces the official blurb of the software, and asks readers about their opinion. Some of the other look like splogs or aggregators of product descriptions at best. Pcap ping 08:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also the creator of the page, User:Lexoyo, appears to have a WP:COI, see link on his user page. Pcap ping 09:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keepper significant coverage in the available RS, which demonstrates notability. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 03:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC) — Werner Heisenberg (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy.[reply]- Sockepuppet of banned user. See User talk:Werner Heisenberg. Pcap ping 08:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the lack of reliable sources. The sources provided by Pcap are insufficient to establish notability because they are either unreliable and/or passing mentions. I fully agree with the nominator's and Pcap's deletion rationales. Cunard (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sourav Chatterjee
- Sourav Chatterjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
He seems to be a marginally notable academic. The article has been subjected to edit warring ranging from attempts to stub it to one sentence to adding silly puffery. I'm nominating it in the hope that the claim(s) for notability will become apparent. Pcap ping 05:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 05:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- –SpacemanSpiff 06:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Moderate Keep No results in the world news but he does seem more notable than not being a college professor. Scientific Commons seems to have several essays co-written by him. link Publichall (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is irrelevant per WP:PROF. His main claim to fame is the Tweedie New Researcher Award. It's only $2000, but I don't know if it's prestigious or not. The Gödel Prize is only $5000, but we do have an article on almost every winner, so the low sum money isn't necessarily an indicator of non-notability. Pcap ping 15:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete. GS h index less than 10. Article created too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Weak delete. On track to eventually meet WP:PROF but I don't think he's there yet. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He has publications, is editor and is awarded. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep, perhaps just notable enough. Paul August ☎ 18:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Faculty at Courant is an indication of notability, at least in an indirect way. Salih (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Perhaps doesn't quite meet WP:PROF just yet, but ... I'm going to go for a bit of WP:BURO on this one -- the odds that this probabilist will pass WP:PROF given time are extremely high. RayTalk 08:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Associate professor. Very low citation count. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Abductive (reasoning) 18:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it does not exactly require a crystal ball to see that someone who gets a PhD from Stanford in 2005, is appointed Assistant professor at Berkeley immediately afterwards, and only 4 years later is promoted to Associate professor at both Berkley and NYU-Courant is much more notable than the average associate professor. We can use common sense in judging notability, DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have sources saying that? Because mathematicians bloom early, so I could just as easily make up a rule that he should be famous by now. His citation count is
68, 22, 19, 18, 15, 15, 14, 10, 8, 7, 7, 6, 4.... I also note that the article makes no particular claim of an advancement in the field; it just says "he worked on" some things. One has to ask; if every professor works on some research topics, will not every professor get an article? Abductive (reasoning) 03:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have sources saying that? Because mathematicians bloom early, so I could just as easily make up a rule that he should be famous by now. His citation count is
- The citation 68 is not him, but someone from Department of Physics and Astronomy, Northwestern University. But even the other numbers are not at all that low for 2-year-old math papers. He has sort of revolutionized Stein's method, finding striking new applications, e.g., gave a new and simple proof of the Komlós-Major-Tusnády strong approximation theorem (1976) for random walks and Brownian motion, which is a strengthening of Skorokhod's embedding theorem. The original KMT paper has 637 citations on Google Scholar. So, these are clearly advancements in probability, how great, I don't really know how to judge. At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Whack-a-mole.3F, I wrote that
- He might be exceptionally good, but it certainly seems too early to have an article on him. For instance, I know a lot of youngish probabilists who are more notable than him (say, based on citations of their first ten papers on Google Scholar, or on prizes) without wikipedia articles on them. But, with the current more realistic article, I don't think it matters much if it is deleted or not.
- Maybe wikipedia should have articles on those other youngish probabilists, too. Anyway, My “vote” is weak delete, but can also keep. --GaborPete (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AmeriCares
- AmeriCares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hello there, Don the Sockpuppet made this nomination because no references exist for the article and it is written like a advertisement. Five Ton Sockpuppet (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted, per WP:CSD #7 "No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)." - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RedSQ
- RedSQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. No reliable sources to verify notability. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as A7 company. Pcap ping 08:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
American Technologies Network Corporation
- American Technologies Network Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article does not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Much effort has been made on the part of Phantomsteve to research notability, but none was found. The creator and main editor, Stripedfox, has admitted to COI. See the talk page for a detailed discussion between Stripedfox and Phantomsteve. I had previously proposed this for deletion, but since it was controversial, the PROD was removed, therefore I am now nominating through this method. Joshua Scott (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A lot of effort has gone into to this article and I know Stripedfox had the best intentions, but as stated other than a few press releases, court documents, and minor information there seems to be no independent reliable sources. WP:COMPANY. Daa89563 (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I've notified Stripedfox and Phantomsteve of this AfD discussion. Joshua Scott (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As detailed on the conversation on the talk page, the sources provided do not indicate notability as defined by Wikipedia's guidelines. Despite several searches for independent reliable sources, I was unable to find any. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At first, I wanted to thank all participants of this conversation for their attention.
I wanted to ask all of you several questions about this article and about Wikipedia guidelines. As I understand, the main argument was that all of the publications I signed were promotional and ATN maybe have payed money for the material about their company. And for example "The New York Times" is more trusted and respected magazine. But, as I know, publishing in "The New York Times" also costs money. Two years ago to place the article to the first page of this magazine was nearly 2000$. Now, I think, it is much more expensive. So, the first question is, do you consider that only that magazines which take more money for the place on their pages than the rest are more trusted than others?
As for the next question, I have already written about this some time ago and I want to repeat this again. This company does not produce products of daily use, but it offers equipment for Army, Law Enforcement, Police, hunting, hiking etc. So, I think that this branch is enough important for the general Encyclopedia like this one.
And as for the night vision and thermal night vision, do you really think that these inventions are not enough important for the world? And ATN were the fist who has developed some technologies for this branch, that many other companies now use (It is in my article).
Also I wanted to ask you to be so kind and list that magazines, publications and Award nominations that can be verified specifically for this industry. And I ask you not to write platitudes but to list concrete publications, which can really be interested to write an article about this company сonsidering it's specificity without money and which are really enough trusted for Wikipedia. Because I think that if there is no enough trusted sources for this concrete theme, it does not mean that this information is not interesting for Encyclopedia, that only means that there is info that is not enough developed in magazines, but despite that it still has it's informational value.
And for the last one, I give you the link to the list of magazines and PDF files of the publications about this company. This list is constantly updated and I hope that you will find respected in this area magazines there that will be enough trusted for Wiki.
And I also wanted to recall that in other Encyclopedias only subject specialists approve articles, so if you are Language Specialist you should correct and approve only text, but not the informational content I think. And to approve or deny the article I will kindly ask you to consult with specialists in this concrete theme. That is all, I hope you will review your opinion after consulting with specialists about this theme and I will wait for your decision.Stripedfox | Talk 10:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pál Sümegi
- Pál Sümegi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Procedural - I declined a PROD on this one, since Gscholar turned up decent citation counts. I know nothing about archaeology and read no Hungarian however, so I refer here for further discussion RayTalk 00:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- RayTalk 00:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and moveAdd his name and the sentance of why he's notable with citation to List of Hungarians. It will remain redlinked and keep its one sentance long article structure and two references and the redlink might prompt someone to actually create a real article. Nefariousski (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The Hungarian article says he is a doctor of the Hungarian Academy of Science, docent in a Hungarian university, has written 8 books, chapters in 37 books, many articles in periodicals and has 260 "scientific announcements" (eerr.. I don't know this is the proper name of them in English) Their summarized impact factor is 22.000. He has got many scholarships and two prizes. The sad thing is: I don't know this all made him notable, or not according to the enwiki rules. --Perfectmiss (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree with the deletion. Notability and fame are not the same. His notability is supported by the above-written references. Earning fame in geoarcheology as in many other auxiliary sciences of archaeology or historiograpy (heraldics, faleristics, sfragistics) is practically impossible unless someone starts a National Geography TV carrier on some popular issue such as "How to dig out the Holy Grail?" My personal opinion is that we can find easier notable historians among 'unknown' researchers than among famous essayists compiling 1000 page best-sllers by up-grading commonplaces on popular issues. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 17:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Lots of notable books authored, member of prestigous academic society. Widely cited. Why are we nominating these sorts of things?! LotLE×talk 22:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The brevity of the article, I suspect. Not that this is a bad reason to delete an article; this one says, in total, "Pál Sümegi (born May 11, 1960 in Tapolca) is a Hungarian geoarchaeologist at the University of Szeged." As such, it could be deleted under A7. If people can be bothered to tell us what somebody is noted for, why have an article, right? Abductive (reasoning) 09:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One Lone Car
- One Lone Car (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet notability guidelines. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources (references provided are either primary ones, blogs or trivial). No indication of awards, charted singles or albums or anything else that might help meet notability guidelines. Not on a notable label either. RadioFan (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There appears to be local coverage in PlaybackStl such as this. But I cannot find anything beyond this. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete- I live in NYC and I've seen lots of write ups about this band when they come through. Also, i found this from Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas --
http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2008/dec/13/live-review-one-lone-car-radiant-and-calhoun-lolas/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bball606 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is [32]. Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fremont College
- Fremont College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable proprietary career college with no significant third-party references. Reads like an ad, author is apparently a single purpose account. Searching Fremont College on google returns three related hits: this article, and two links to their website, google news comes back with absolutely nothing.
Accredited or not, as a for-profit institution, Fremont should be held to the same notability standards as a business, and in that regard, it fails miserably. 2 says you, says two 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - normally, high schools and colleges are notable. Does this really grant degrees or just diplomas? Is it really accredited? Bearian (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, yes they are accredited. It is through one of those national organizations designed to meet the bare minimum DoE requirements to receive Title IV federal aid, not one of the more recognized regional accreditation agencies. I also remember reading somewhere that the idea of all schools being notable does not necessarily hold true for for-profit institutions. Anyone can set up a career school and get dubious "national accreditation" and call themselves a college. 2 says you, says two 13:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC
- Comment - This is not a notable educational institution. They do not even have a physical campus. Their website indicates they just got "a sign" to put on the "building" they occupy. —• Raider2000 (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Google News unearthed a fascinating connection between this institution in its 1956 naming and Sequoia University, which is better documented. At the time the institution was investigated as a diploma mill and received attention across the state of California. It's worth keeping for that alone. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in some form, I suppose, per Edward Vielmetti. I am not opposed to a merge or what have you, I just think there is a home for this content somewhere. JBsupreme (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep - Among other things, it's fully accredited as an institution of higher education. (I verified its accreditation on its accreditor's database, and from a US Dept of Education directory I verified that the accreditor is recognized as an accreditor.) Furthermore, Fremont apparently has a long history. --Orlady (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Past consensus has stated that accreditation is not necessarily an indicator of notability when the school in question is for-profit or proprietary, these schools are to be treated like businesses for WP:N. That being said, if there's a connection with L. Ron Hubbard then this should be kept, personally I'd feel better with a merge - Sequoia has better sourcing and is more developed, we could fit what is verifiable from Fremont with that. 2 says you, says two 05:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - accredited degree awarding institution with interesting history. TerriersFan (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Accredited institution, sufficient sources to show notability. Rebecca (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'm going to go with precedent, or if you will, common outcomes - most colleges, proprietary or not, are notable. COI disclosure: I work for another proprietary college. Bearian (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lisa Robertson (television)
- Lisa Robertson (television) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not to be confused with any other person of the same name, the subjec of this minimally referenced biography is a TV presenter on QVC. The article is essentially a paraphrase of the QVC page on her. Press reporting seems largely limited to passing mentions and a stalking case some years back. No doubt well-known thanks to her work, but not necessarily "notable" in the WP:N Wikipedia sense. Not much here here really. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete She's been mentioned a lot in passing, but I don't think the coverage is significant enough to meet WP:BIO. ThemFromSpace 05:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ThemFromSpace, mainly because of the paraphrase, which I found quite close. Airplaneman talk 03:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non notable biography. There is a lack of a properly referenced body of work. Stormbay (talk)
- KeepThis article should be reinstated and should not of been deleted.I see less notable people with less information and no referenced body of work having biographies listed on Wikipedia.Also almost everyone article or biography is a paraphrase from where the contributor has copy and pasted it from somewhere else.Laker44 (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Search3
- Search3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable website, article written by single-purpose user who is a co-founder of the company. There is some coverage here, but beyond that I have been unable to find any significant third-party coverage from reliable sources. Haakon (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, i understand the feedback and can provide significantly more links to articles written about Search3 from many sites, will that help? I can't do much about the WP:SPA if other independent people edit the document does that remove this concern? I also see many sites like ours within Wikipedia so would love your assistance to make this page more appropriate, can you help edit it?--Cdclayton (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment cdclayton, the issue isn't really that this is the only thing your editing. A thousand people could edit it, but that doesn't make it any more or less notable of a search engine CTJF83 chat 07:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Delete for now, with no prejudice against recreation later when it becomes more notable (more than Yet Another Me-Too metasearch with release-buzz that promptly falls into obscurity). I checked the refs, and they seem to be are mostly roundup/annotated-lists (not in-depth), passing mention, or near-launch-time items mostly quoting involved people (not independent in-depth analysis). DMacks (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. The IP user who was the person who actually wanted deletion did not come participate in the discussion, the formal nominator had no !vote, and nobody else has participated. With nobody actively calling for deletion, the most appropriate way to close is as keep, without prejudice to renomination if someone is actively willing to argue for deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mikey L. Hoeven
- Mikey L. Hoeven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Creating this debate page on behalf of [86.40.214.5] who did not complete all steps for AfD. Reason given was: "Notability is not inherited, this is a biography with no independent multiple reliable sources, graduating, having children and being married for 25 years is not notable" DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - I created this debate page as part of the editing process and have no vote, but the original nominator does make some good points. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. -- Bradjamesbrown (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mustang Mike
- Mustang Mike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Autobiography of unremarkable wrestler. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:GNG from what I can tell. Fails WP:ATHLETE too, as he hasn't worked at the top level of his sport. Nikki♥311 03:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:N as well as WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. Personal life totally unreferenced and could be a candidate for WP:VAIN issues as well. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 10:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Merge relevant content to Van Tuong Nguyen. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Darshan Singh
- Darshan Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Darshan Singh is only mentioned in primary sources, namely news sources, and only respect to a single event, namely the execution of Van Tuong Nguyen. He does not meet the general notability standard, nor the specific one for people, because of lack of coverage in secondary sources. See also People notable only for one event. Request Deletion Bejnar (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or merge - I think the guy has some notability, maybe just enough to pass the WP:GNG (though maybe not). But his notability only really arises from the controversy over Van Tuong Nguyen, which conflicts with WP:BLP1E. I think he may be worth a mention (not too big a mention) at Van Tuong Nguyen, but not a whole article. Spizzilizounge, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 12:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Mention in [[Van Tuong Nguyen as suggested by User:Spongefrog. 850 hangings is more than one event (even though the article focuses mainly on the one), but even then he is just doing his job - admittedly an unusual one, but having an unusual job isn't a criteria for notability as far as I can judge. Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. A paragraph or two at Van Tuong Nguyen should cover all for which this person is notable. Wine Guy Talk 09:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JForget 00:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
English country music
- English country music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is unreferenced, and because of the nebulous subject matter, I see no way to reference it. Even if we verify the events described, we cannot easily verify that the culturual significance is anything other than the article author's opinion. Chutznik (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's worth noting that there are categories implicitly underpinned by the subject of the article: Category:English country music songwriters and Category:English country musicians, plus subcat Category:English country music groups. But it's more implicit than actual, due to the flagged problems in the article's content. AllyD (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep After a session with Google I've added a couple of article references. Its content needs broadened (the Digby ref can assist with that) but I think there's enough to say it should stay. AllyD (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Almost all country music songs are written in English, although sometimes some Spanish phrases or words are thrown in. Mandsford (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 00:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Desktop Factory
- Desktop Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable corporation, lacks external refs, is a small startup that never actually sold a product and was consumed by another company. MBisanz talk 05:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. I skimmed the article and have nothing to add. Chutznik (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No google news or book hits for the 125ci product (the only product that the article claims was prototyped by the company), and the only article (PDF) mentions it only is passing. Joshua Scott (talk) 02:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JForget 00:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dan Briody
- Dan Briody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Considering the only source is an op-ed piece in a newspaper and the books don't appear to be notable on their own (the first is ranked 873,000th on WP), I believe he fails our notability guidelines. MBisanz talk 05:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Plenty of reliable sources are available here. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep. There isn't much to support the article against the specific criteria of WP:Author or the general criteria of WP:BIO, but the books have been quoted and the author interviewed on television, quoted in the news and appears (briefly) in a documentary - all of which must count for something. The article does need a lot of work if it stays, however. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There are a significant number of hits on schloar, including a number of citations; he may meet WP:AUTHOR depending on your definition of "widely cited by their peers". Regardless of WP:AUTH, he clearly meets the WP:BIO basic criteria. He's gotten a considerable amount of press regarding Iron Triangle and Halliburton Agenda. Wine Guy Talk 09:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pint o' Politics: A Discourse on the Modern Poltical Climate
- Pint o' Politics: A Discourse on the Modern Poltical Climate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-published book with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 04:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: All that I can find is Wikipedia. Joe Chill (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:BK. The article is unsourced and Google shows no signs of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources: [33]. — Rankiri (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kaneva Game Platform
- Kaneva Game Platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article describes thing which no longer exists RawrMage (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral First of all, something no longer existing is not a rationale for deletion, or we'd be deleting historical figures and events left and right. That said, this article, Kaneva, and Virtual World of Kaneva look like clear candidates to be merged into one article. No opinion on whether Kaneva itself is notable or not, a glance around the Google News archive mostly brings up "Kaneva" as a last name and a smattering of blurbs about some guy who got arrested for luring kids in the game. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete – I found [34] but not much else. –MuZemike 05:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or redirect to Kaneva per WP:PRODUCT. Marasmusine (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per significant coverage in [35] [36]. These articles are specifically about the game engine, not the game or the company. Pcap ping 08:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Marasmusine, the GameZone interview is hardly a neutral source and the the MMORPG.com source looks to be a user review type article (the writer is not listed on the site's staff, clicking on the contributor's name takes you to the social-network aspect of MMORPG.com). Even if that wasn't the case, we would need to establish MMORPG.com as more than a self-published source. I don't see individual notability here due to the lack of indepenent reliable sources. A search brings up nothing else to use for sourcing. Someoneanother 08:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Like I said in another MMORPG AfD, I'm not familiar with sites specializing in this genre. Thanks for pointing out that (some of?) the articles on mmorpg.com are user contributed. This article looked well written and not distinguishable to me from other game review site article like those on gamespot etc. Pcap ping 09:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Manga BoyZ
- Manga BoyZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable role-playing game, with no coverage in reliable sources. TNXMan 21:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Manga BoyZ is not a Manga but Role-playing_game ! Le Grimoire is a publisher in France since 1992. Manga BoyZ is one of the universe published by the editor. Four books are available. Reliable sources can be found. --Ellwen (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The first three pages of a Google search yield only the official website of this RPG (the rest are discussions about male manga characters), falling foul of the 'independent of the subject' component of the general notability guideline. Other than that, I can find this page, which doesn't appear to be significant. JulieSpaulding (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. JForget 00:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Necessary Records
- Necessary Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable by extension as record label of Hard-Fi. Though a note should be added to explain it is a minor label Rotovia (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. A small label with multiple notable acts might warrant an article, but one act isn't enough to make up for what looks like a total lack of independent coverage. Holly25 (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Airpushers
- Airpushers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I searched three pages of Google searches and the only source with chunkiness that I can find is this one. WP:BAND specifies multiple non-trivial published works. I can only find one, so I'm going to say delete. JulieSpaulding (talk) 07:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Emma Summerton
- Emma Summerton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:CREATIVE. May also fail WP:PROMO Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is apparently some sort of spam or self promotion, yes. JBsupreme (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, insufficient sources to prove notability. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper above.--TrustMeTHROW! 03:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC) – User is a blocked sock puppet. Striking !vote Jujutacular T · C 19:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Jenafalt (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This photographer does fail WP:CREATIVE, but I believe is notable given the large number of citations of her photography from a wide range of sources. A simple google search and a google news search bring up lots of hits on her and she seems to have collaborated in more than a cursory way with a large number of magazines and fashion houses. She is notable as a photographer, but not a creative one. I have added a few of the sources I turned up and will try to add some more later. Jenafalt (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. She's a notable fashion photographer; as Jenafalt as demonstrated, there are more than enough sources to prove notability here. Rebecca (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Squeaks by with adequate sources, as per Rebecca's observation. Warrah (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep a pro photographer with such a wide resume, including editorial work for Vogue and the like, is certainly notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - I am persuaded by the keep arguments. Any POV/spam concerns should be addressed through editing. Those, however, are editing issues, and I am persuaded that the subject merits inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adam Ferguson (photographer)
- Adam Ferguson (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not notable. Does not meet the criteria of WP:CREATIVE Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, insufficient sources to prove notability. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe nominator's first two words say it all: Not notable!--TrustMeTHROW! 03:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC) – User is a blocked sock puppet. Striking !vote. Jujutacular T · C 19:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - sorry, I just had to ask :) Is there any reason why you think this article is not notable? JulieSpaulding (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, wasn't aware of WP:CREATIVE when I made the page (and the article doesn't seem to satisfy the criteria). Still, I thought the Time article made it noteworthy enough. SPat talk 04:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: That's no problem. Even though I am arguing to delete the page, I can clearly see why you would have thought it was worth creating. Of course these debates - regardless of their outcome - should never reflect on an creator/editor who has acted in good faith (as you have clearly done). Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice. This was a tough one for me, I thought that this person should be notable enough as per WP:GNG, but apparently he lacks the non-trivial coverage from multiple third party sources. That's not to say there never will be such sources available, so perhaps in time this one can be recreated. JBsupreme (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I know the consensus so far has been 'delete', but I did a bit of in-depth searching and found some non-trivial coverage to satisfy WP:GNG - namely [37][38][39][40][41], and to some extent [42] (the first one also goes part-way to satisfying WP:CREATIVE's 'significant exhibition' criterion). The list goes on. Therefore, I'd say that this article satisfies the general notability guideline - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. JulieSpaulding (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Response): Thanks for the links. Unfortunately the definition of a "non-trivial" source is a bit subjective. There are however some guidelines on relaible sources at WP:RELIABLE, which seems to favour news articles and scholorly sources. Self-published articles, blogs and promotional material are considered "questionable sources". Some of the links you provided might fall into the latter category. There are many, many photographers (and other creative professionals) who get mentioned in a range of material, but I am not sure that these are what the guidelines intend. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Jenafalt (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Again, as with the afd for Emma Summerton this article does fail WP:CREATIVE but is still about someone who is notable enough for an article on wikipedia. Not all photographers have to be very creative to be notable - some are notable for their commercial success, for example. Their are many sources available to show that this person is notable. Jenafalt (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: WP:CREATIVE isn't about the creativity of the photographer. It's about their notability. As a rule, the photographer should pass at least one of the criteria set out in the policy and this should be supported by independent and reliable sources. We don't have that with this article. The one reliable source (Time magazine) is an article that mentions Ferguson but doesn't confirm his notability. I encourage everyone commenting here to read WP:CREATIVE and see if they can't find one or two sources that provide evidence against one of the criteria. If that doesn't happen, tyhe keep votes really aren't worth much and the article should be deleted on the basis of lack of notability Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I am confused as to why this article has to meet WP:CREATIVE. Why can't the photographer be notable in other terms? Jenafalt (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: He certainly can be, but then the article would only give passing reference to his photography and focus on the reason for his notability. As it stands, it's about him as a photographer, which is why his notability as a photographer is being debated. Even the article's name states that he is a photographer! WP:CREATIVE provides the specific guidelines for determining notability of photographers, among others. If you have evidence that he is notable for some other reason, by all means rewrite the artile and provide the sources! Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: I suppose what I am saying is that he can be a notable photographer without being a particularly creative one. This was also the point I was making with the afd for Emma Summerton. There are some photographers who are not notable as art photographers, but are notable for other things - one of which might be them being a very in demand fashion or commercial photographer. The work doesn't have to be very good in a strictly creative sense, but their use by lots of people is. So for example virgin broadband might be a terrible broadband provider, but it is still important because lots of people use it. - maybe a not very good example, but can you see what I am getting at? I think that the WP:CREATIVE might be appropriate for art photographers, but not for commercial photographers.Jenafalt (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. The "creative" in WP:CREATIVE is just a tag. If you read the first line of the criteria, it's for creative professionals, where the word "creative" means "make stuff". It covers scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals. It doesn't, as far as I can tell, try to imply that the creative professional is particularly artistic. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Interned at VII, shortly thereafter invited to join a small and select group (people from VII and Magnum) to appear (he's here) at "Seeking Justice: Social Activism through Journalism & Documentary Practice". No he doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE, just as a huge percentage of Wikipedia biographees don't meet WP:CREATIVE. Flash your tits for a photographer one day and be airbrushed into the centre pages of Playboy (US circulation 2.4M) and you are guaranteed an article, have photos by you shown in Time (US circulation 3.4M) and you're still a nobody. Do note, however, that its bizarreness aside, WP:CREATIVE is just one part of a page whose preambulatory nutshell says that A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Ferguson was covered very significantly by Photo District News, got more than a mention at Time, and is written up (not merely as an alumnus but as a featured guest) by an arm of Griffith University. These are all independent of Ferguson and their total adds up to significance to me. -- Hoary (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Passes WP:GNG. Coverage in Photo District News and Time is non-trivial in my opinion. Jujutacular T · C 19:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.