Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 October 8

< 7 October	9 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep: nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aravind L Iyer

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

fails WP:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). There are thousands of researchers and University professors across USA and the world with 100s of publications to their credit. Publishing is their job and that alone doesnt make a person notable. The article fails to explain the impact of his research as will be required to be demonstrated by secondary sources. --Car Tick 23:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw the nomination. pls see the explanation below. --Car Tick 14:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —--Car Tick 00:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject to confirmation by someone with access to a better citation metric. Based on a Google Scholar search [1], Iyer appears to pass Criterion 1 of WP:PROF, making him notable. (See Note 1 of WP:PROF.) Iyer being the editor and an article author of the Wiley Encyclopedia of Genetics, Genomics, Proteomics and Bioinformatics would also seem to lend weight to the notability argument. The fact that the article is currently a stub, and could be expanded to explain the man's impact, is not sufficient grounds for deletion. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well, i have access to ISI Web of Knowledge at work. How many citations according to you will satisfy the criteria 1. section editors are not the same as editor-in-chief. --Car Tick 02:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know—why not run the search and see what sort of number comes up? If you have access to the tool and you haven't checked it yet, isn't it premature to declare that he fails to meet the criteron? The WP:PROF Criterion 1 says "either of several extremely highly cited scholarly publications or of a substantial number of scholarly publications with significant citation rates" qualifies for notability. As for Wiley, it appears to be a notable reference work [2]; it looks like Iyer is a section editor, which doesn't automatically qualify him, but it does lend weight to the idea that he's more notable than many academics. (Looks like résumé inflation is alive and well at NIH, too...) I'm not saying the fellow is Stephen Hawking, but he's not Professor Randy from Boise Community College, either; there's room here for benefit of the doubt. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

google scholar and ISI web search bring up often similar number, ISI search may yield slightly fewer. Again Aravind is a common Indian name.

we have so many online databases these days, every investigator automaticaly becomes editor of one of these. it is nothing great. for example, [3]

Besides, in a mediocre Institute like i am working, we have more than 100 professors who will meet the notability criteria which Iyer meets. Pls dont make wikipedia notability a joke. --Car Tick 03:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just counting the papers on which he is first author, I see in Google scholar 345, 285, 282, 237, 221, 220, etc cites. The citations for his other papers are even more stellar. Our article on him is not good, but he clearly passes WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. To add to Eppstein's devastating comment. Top GS cites for "L Aravind" are 7054, 1019, 860, 612..., h index around 80 to give wide pass of WP:Prof#C1. Even in a highly cited field this is colossal. Nominator should read WP:Before before making further AfD nominations. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

sorry. what are GS cites? --Car Tick 05:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Cited by" counts from a Google scholar search. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i will check these numbers with ISI tomorrow (7054, 11019, 860, 612) if you you dont mind telling me the name of the articles. I just realise i havent even found the bottom of the wikipedia notability criteria. i would like to withdraw the nomination if it is possible. --Car Tick 05:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should be able to read the names of the articles in the link from my previous comment. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we all know what being middle author means. i dont think citations for these middle author papers should be considered. I am told H-Index 10 or more is the current consensus. In that case, he definitely passes. it is a pretty low standard, guess i can create my article too. --Car Tick 11:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Material hidden by nominator

Just a comment. There are some odd things going on with India related articles [4] at Nair. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

how is this related to this deletion discussion. are you implying i am out to destroying India related articles with an axe to grind? clearly, u have no idea about India related artcles, even if i have an axe to grind, both articles are thousand miles apart, i have to have multiple agendas. Thanks for correcting 11019 to 1019. --Car Tick 12:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit history of nominators and editors is not off-topic. It is not uncommon in these academic AfD debates that, after some discussion, it becomes clear that nominators, BLP subjects or editors are found to have a POV that is influencing their edits. This knowledge is useful in forming the views of other editors about an AfD article. I make no comment about whether this is the case for this article. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I, personally, do not think that the nominator has an agenda to push in taking this article to AfD. It just happened that he has not done his research well before this AfD nomination. Salih (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Thanks Salih. To Xxanthippe: it just happened i am involved in two of these unpleasant wikidramas at the same time. by linking to ANI, u certainly implied that i have an agenda that drives both the dramas, but failed to provide a rationale how. You were comparing apples with oranges. i do fully support evaluating edit history of users. I myself had just called out about 10 (who knows how many) of editors for being WP:SPAs in Nair article. I am also aware that doing so can piss off genuine vandals and responsible users alike.

As far as i remember, this is my first afd nomination of an academic and i keep realising i still have a lot to learn. The main reason i nominated the article was the familiarity of the topic and i meet hundreds of people of the man's caliber in everyday life and never thought all of these men qualify wikipedia article. I have to admit, my utopian (naïve) imagination of wikipedia notability is somewhat shaken. This also makes me want to create articles of the thousands of missing researchers.

Everybody has an agenda. To say otherwise would be disingenuous. My agenda is to participate in Tamil Nadu and India related articles. Though i try my best to be neutral in my edits and discussions, i wouldnt be surprised if people notice i hold favourable views to some of these topics. I am pretty confident WP:Prof and academic AFD debates are influenced by editors with an agenda to keep the notability bar low for conceivable reasons. Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein wouldnt probably have the time to be participating in wikipedia editing. I would say personal agendas are ok as long as it conforms with wikipedia guidelines. That is exactly why we have WP:NPOV. --Car Tick

Comment. If the nominator wishes to withdraw his nomination he should strike it through and say that he wishes to do so. I expect that will lead to a speedy closure. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:25, 10 October 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 by User:Newyorkbrad, salted by yours truly; extensive discussion will be needed before considering recreating this article in the mainspace. –MuZemike 02:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Bruce McMahan

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

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

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

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

Not clearly notable businessman, recreation of previously AFDd page (see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce McMahan (3rd nomination). Some off wiki canvassing is also apparently happening here and here. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 23:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 23:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! --24.7.75.209 (talk) 23:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC) I know it's not a ballot, jeeze. Was just trying to be a friendly ip. --24.7.75.209 (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The template was not a response to your comment, but for the overall discussion in general as it's likely to attract people from the reddit links. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting. I would argue that the question of notability is answered by the existence of multiple articles about the man in numerous publications, but clearly this article needs expansion to elaborate on why he's notable. HorseloverFat (talk)

All the sources are about his alleged relationship with his daughter. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 00:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd. Added CSD G4 tag to article. Sven Manguard _Talk 00:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep What should be in the article, and whether it should contain the accusations against the subject, is a separate question. McMahan is a major philanthropist whose work has been covered in WP:RS. Vrivers (talk) 02:00, 9 October 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. I'm sorry but the delete !voters in this one make a pretty good case for WP:NOTNEWS. There are some suggestions to merge but currently there is no target. If someone wishes to write an article about earthquakes in this region and wishes to merge anything from this article, I'll be glad to restore it. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Banda Sea earthquake

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

Not of lasting significance. The BBC reported five years ago there were no injuries or damage. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the other Banda earthquake articles - No sign of checking the projects (earthquakes or Indonesia) or the more obvious sources - the USGS or the Indonesian sources - I would not put any credos to either the BBC or google on this subject in the first place Satu Suro 23:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another one of these earthquakes without historical significance. At the very least, merge all the Banda Sea earthquakes articles onto just one. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the possibility of 'without historical significance' being simply not having enough information in the usual sources to prove either way is no reason for deletion Satu Suro 00:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean. Earthquakes like this happen everyday and everywhere. Diego Grez (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying - the problem is just because and afd comes along does not mean that the nominator or the fellow afd conversationsists can actually understand whether there was a significant impact or not as the very basis of the material as presented by the sources - in some cases the actual tectonic behaviour in the banda sea may well have long lasting effect and be of significance - some simple deletion on wikipedia does not prove 'anything' as to the event or its impact Satu Suro 00:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, of course. There are plenty of other AfD'dded articles that just after they were nominated, they were improved and their notability was asserted. But I can't find anything to prove this wrong, nominator said there was no damage or injuries in the area, and they weren't, doing a quick lookup. Diego Grez (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. —Satu Suro 00:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above of just delete, note that the maximum felt intensity was only V on the Mercalli intensity scale, due to the 201 km focal depth. I searched on Google scholar to see if there were any scientific papers discussing this or the other Banda Sea 'quakes, but failed to find anything. Mikenorton (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is just another news item about an earthquake. No evidence of lasting impact and no injuries, deaths or damage. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! The Sunda-Banda arc earthquakes are not "just another earthquake" or "every earthquake" or even "non-notable" earthquakes. These earthquakes are in the news, even when they don't cause damage, and they make headlines, even when earthquakes of similar magnitude in less remote areas don't, because of the probable mechanism of the earthquake and the possibility that these deep earthquakes in this tectonically complex region are evidence of damage and offset to the subducting plate. --KMLP (talk) 2:27 pm, Today (UTC−7)

Did you take note of WP:NOTNEWS stating, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion?" —Mike moral ♪♫ 22:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand that. If something is in the news, it is not qualified for inclusion in wikipedia? That doesn't seem to make sense, but it also is not related to my points, as I don't weigh scientific noteworthiness based on news articles. The earthquake is in the news because it's geologically notable, not vice versa. But, that something is scientifically notable, then makes the news, doesn't lead to it is not notable enough for wikipedia because it's in the news. Simply too convoluted to handle. I've said my piece. --KMLP (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:39, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete per above. --Avenue (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there were proof of any effects from this quake, it could be notable. Could. As there aren't, it's a bit of non-news for Wikipedia. It'll probably be listed at WikiNews (never been there, so couldn't really say what they do). But, as someone said above, there are loads of earthquakes and the intensity level is no indicator of actual results. A low intensity quake close under Mexico City would be far more dangerous than a high intensity quake 120 km from Tokyo. Peridon (talk) 23:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Content, though it may not need its own article, put it where it makes most sense.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 00:48, 16 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Banda Sea earthquake

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Non-notable earthquake causing no damage or injuries. —Mike moral ♪♫ 23:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We just can't have an article for every single earthquake. We have to select the most notable ones, not write about one as soon as they appear on the USGS RSS feed. Diego Grez (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't come close to meeting the proposed 'Notability guidelines for earthquake articles on Wikipedia'. Mikenorton (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is just another news item about an earthquake. No evidence of lasting impact and no injuries, deaths or damage. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:12, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! The Sunda-Banda arc earthquakes are not "just another earthquake" or "every earthquake" or even "non-notable" earthquakes. These earthquakes are in the news, even when they don't cause damage, and they make headlines, even when earthquakes of similar magnitude in less remote areas don't, because of the probable mechanism of the earthquake and the possibility that these deep earthquakes in this tectonically complex region are evidence of damage and offset to the subducting plate. --KMLP (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we just can't have an article on every earthquake just because they appeared in the news... --Diego Grez (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say we could or should. I said this article is in the news because it is notable due to its geology not that we should have an article because it's in the news. --KMLP (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Chile's geography is important too. If I recall correctly, there was a strong earthquake (magnitude 5.9) on September 29, and it got significant coverage on reliable sources such as the BBC. But it hasn't its own article. Why should this one? --Diego Grez (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I didn't say it should be kept because it's in the news, I said it's notable because of its geological significance and uniqueness, so I'm not following your continued argument about newsworthiness of this or other earthquakes. Geological science is not constrained to studying what the news reports should or should not be researched. If this Chilean earthquake has the potential to crack subducted lithosphere or do something truly powerful on a geological scale, it also might merit its own article. Just because it doesn't have one, doesn't mean it doesn't merit one. --KMLP (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mikenorton and others. --Avenue (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the earthquake articles to geology of the Banda Sea. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:59, 11 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Hates the Laundromat

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

Single episode is not article worthy, fails WP:GNG. Derild 49 21 ☼ 22:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1, 2 reviews, also has DVD commentary for a production section....we need to give the page creator more than 10 minutes to write an article before AfD. CTJF83 chat 22:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm gonna change it to a non-notable episode, thanks to other delete !voters...I still don't agree with an AfD 10 minutes after the page is created....CTJF83 chat 14:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of those two links, #1 says nothing about the episode except that it exists, and #2 is a plot summary that still fails to demonstrate why the episode would be notable enough to have its own separate article above and beyond the existing episode list. What cultural impact did this particular episode have in its own right, beyond simply being an individual episode of a TV series? For example, the only episode of Ellen that has or will ever have its own article is "The Puppy Episode", because it's the only one for which we can write anything more than a generic plot summary — none of the show's 108 other episodes have their own standalone articles, but are instead covered only in the omnibus List of Ellen episodes. And that's a show that ranked in the Top 20 in its ratings prime — something which Everybody Hates Chris, funny though it is, never came close to achieving. What, then, is this particular episode's claim to independent notability? What's unique and encyclopedic about it to warrant a separate article? Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 23:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant: List of Everybody Hates Chris episodes does a perfectly good job summarizing the episode, this standalone article does not add anything. Reviews can be added to the list article as appropriate. (But yeah, 10 minutes does seem a little hasty.) 28bytes (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to note that this is part of a larger issue; in the past week or so, a user has been systematically spinning off standalone articles about each episode of this series, consisting only of an infobox and the plot description pasted directly from List of Everybody Hates Chris episodes. Of course, the standard notability rule applies here; we only need or want standalone articles about individual episodes of a TV series if reliable sources demonstrating the individual notability of that individual episode are available — but for the vast majority of individual episodes of the vast majority of TV shows, the most we will ever want or need is a single merged episode list. But when I initially tagged the first seven articles with {{inuniverse}}, somebody came along and arbitrarily removed that tag without making any actual improvements to the articles. Accordingly, they've all now been redirected back to List of Everybody Hates Chris episodes#Season 1: 2005-2006, which is what we should do here as well. Redirect to List of Everybody Hates Chris episodes#Season 1: 2005-2006. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all that except I don't think it even merits a redirect; is anyone going to be searching for it by episode title? There are going to be a lot of "Everybody Hates..." entries showing up in the auto-complete box if we give each episode a redirect. 28bytes (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. Though traditionally the idea behind redirecting was to minimize the likelihood of the article being recreated again, that obviously didn't prevent it here. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Bearcat; I helped out a bit on two related links. TV episodes are not notable enough for Wikipedia unless they receive a lot of press coverage. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 12:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Uninteresting ghits if any, I got no hits at google scholar when I tried, a single episode like this would need to have some serious impact to be noteworthy - and this, sadly, hasn't. It's nothing personal. Greswik (talk) 14:09, 15 October 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. Mkativerata (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brando Advertising Agency

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

No notable, no assertion of notability, refs contain passing mentions or recitations of press releases, fails WP:CORP Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 23:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete nothing in gnews [5]. LibStar (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no gnews, many of the references seem to be dead. This article was prev. speedied (G11), which was overturned: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_November_17. Article was created by an SPA, who I would bet works for Brando. They have added information on only Brando's page, and companies who are presumably advertising with Brando. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 17:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only claims for subminimal significance are minor trade awards, which fail to establish cultural, historical, or technical significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:50, 10 October 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. While the subject is mentioned in numerous items of coverage, consensus is that the mentions do not add up to significant coverage in reliable sources, as opposed to incidental or trivial coverage. Mkativerata (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Whigham

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

Non-notable person; sole source essentially a blog; apparently done by SPA as part of a movie promotion. PhGustaf (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this AfD was mentioned in an edit summary on the Tea Party movement page

Delete In the current format, this article should probably be deleted. A quick Google Search only turned up 115 items with Nate Whigham and Tea party. When I looked at the hits, I couldn't find anything that was more that trivial mentions in reliable sources. Almost everything said about him is A) He's voted for Obama B) he's now helping organize the Georgia Tea Party (but not capacity or role) C) he's been interviewed because of his stance/race. Provide some meaningful sources (the Cavuto interview might be a start) and I could be pursuaded to change my !vote, but as is, this isn't looking like a keeper.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC) NOTE: Saw the Cavuto interview, he wasn't being interviewed because he himself is notable, but rather because he helped organize an event. The Cavuto interview does next to nothing towards establishing his notability per WP's guidelines.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Balloonmand, WP:BIO and WP:NPF. I've been trying to find significant mentions of Whigham, without success. --Ronz (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 00:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 00:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 00:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE I have Googled "nate whigham" and came up with more than 3,000 entries. Nate is a Tea Party organizer. It is plain and simple to see that through credible sources all over the internet, including ABC news.

http://abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/senate-conservatives-challenge-moderates-tea-party-activists-gop/story?id=9490887&page=3

http://patdollard.com/2010/04/neil-cavuto-interviews-nate-whigham-black-tea-party-leader/

http://www.montgomerynews.com/articles/2010/04/26/glenside_news_globe_times_chronicle/news/doc4bd612aeaf891979120489.txt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divageek2010 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to sign yet, Divageek2010 (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)Divageek2010[reply]
These are the same type of mentions I've found as well. At best, we have a quote from him. Absolutely nothing significant about him though. --Ronz (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not too mention his participation in panel discussions as a Tea Party grass roots activist right along side Jenny Beth Martin the Tea Party Leader: http://www.montgomerynews.com/articles/2010/04/26/glenside_news_globe_times_chronicle/news/doc4bd612aeaf891979120489.txt http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/jenny-beth-martin-the-522344.html ~Divageek2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divageek2010 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Montgomery News article just says he's appearing at a panel discussion. The AJC one doesn't mention him at all. You need references that specifically support every point made in the article. I respect your opinion that he's important, but that opinion isn't a basis for an article. PhGustaf (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The keep side have made appeals to inclusion beyond existing guidelines - which is entirely valid - but those appeals are contrary to the clear consensus here. Mkativerata (talk) 19:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English Radical Alliance

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

Contested PROD; was proposed for deletion by me on the grounds Non-notable: no mainstream coverage (BBC, any national newspaper, etc.) For me, this concern has not been met, and, as such, the argument fails WP:V, from which there is no coming back, however nice the article.

Additionally, I would like to point out the (rather long) rebuttal of this proposed deletion by Modgardener on the article talkpage. It is only fair that I do so, in case s/he does not comment here. Whilst I sympathise with the points made, as far as I can tell me have some sort of alphabet soup link for each paragraph: WP:EXISTS, WP:FUTURE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to name but three. I agree with the contester that the article is reasonably neutral, that is not the concern here; also, I wish Wikipedia were a good way to promote a new form of radical political party, but it is not. We are here to report on existing, notable political parties after they have become "famous". And I would take that last paragraph as an insult, but I was laughing too much. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 20:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of coverage and per the article: "The English Radical Alliance has not contested any elections since being formed in July 2009." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 00:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 00:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The lowest of all possible bars for political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections. This is the stuff of which encyclopedias are made. I am in favor of per se notability for political parties (a la major roads or towns or secondary schools), assuming that their existence is confirmed. —Carrite, Oct. 8, 2010.
Keep - It is an officially registered political party. A quick glance at their website shows that it is not just a couple of mates, but is a bona fide organisation. Just because there are no based sources, does not make in non-notable. There is a world outside Google! Putney Bridge (talk) 08:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as far as the General Notability Guideline is concerned, no based sources is precisely what makes an organisation non-notable. By all means present sources that Google isn't picking up, but if it's just a few letters published in local papers that's nowhere near enough. Just because an organisation exists doesn't make it notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 12:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say no Internet based sources. I have no specific interest in this article, I just wanted to make my world outside Google point. Putney Bridge (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No, don't agree we should treat registered political parties any differently. Elsewhere on wikipedia, we do not allow people to circumvent the General Notability Guideline by simply creating a bit of publicity about yourself. That is why we disregard press releases, any publicity about yourself which you paid to have created, and posts from from mates on open internet forums. To register as a political party you only need to pay £150 and list the signature of the party's major officers, which doesn't prove anything better than publicising yourself with money and your mates. We should consider notability of political parties the same as any other organisation - on substantial independent third-party coverage in reliable sources. Unless someone can show me coverage than GNews misses (as there was zero coverage there), this party is completely non-notable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of coverage in reliable sources. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for complete lack of significant coverage. A political party that has not actually accomplished any political change yet has not yet achieved the level of notability required, and if they disband next year having accomplished nothing, history will not remember them. (Remember, notability is not temporary.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the party runs for election it will probably get a fair amount of coverage. Until then, it doesn't. Mere registration of a political interest group as a "party" does not make it notable unless it actually does something. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete one gnews hit [6]. LibStar (talk) 04:09, 14 October 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. I'll create a redirect to California gubernatorial election, 2010. Consensus is that the subject fails inclusion standards and there is no consensus for the "delay" option. It's quite normal to delete articles about candidates in the middle of a campaign. Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Ogden

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

Fails WP:POLITICIAN as a non-office holding candidate, lacks independent coverage other than a couple articles that state that he is a candidate, but provide no other information that would establish notability. Muboshgu (talk) 19:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I came to the article specifically looking for NPOV information about this candidate for California governor. Granted the article is a bit sparse, but now that the election is a month away I suspect readership as well as editorial interest should increase now. A major radio talk show in the Los Angeles market just endorsed him too. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 00:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 00:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to California gubernatorial election, 2010. Just being an ... unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." I do not see "significant coverage in reliable sources ". The secondary sources just mention his candidacy or general Libertarian Party positions, not any details about his life. Will Beback talk 00:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Or delay There's an ongoing campaign in which the subject it a participant. So far as Wikipedia is concerned a month is little matter. Even if the subject is insignificant, there's no cost in waiting a few weeks to establish that. Will Beback talk 13:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Meets notability guidelines for WP:GNG (WP:POLITICIAN is unnecessary). As one of only six candidates listed on the current ballot for Governor of California, he is going to qualify for some notability.This hour-long interview on the NPR radio station KALW-FM adds to significant coverage. And there seems to be plenty of mentions on political discussion websites -- enough to presume more reliable sources. There currently is enough for the tiny bit of information that exists in the article. IMO, with only one month left before the election, this seems poor timing for a notability debate on this guy. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 00:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - Or Delay -- per the discussion below. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't recall where we've ever used the "presumption" of reliable sources in an AFD. Are editors unable to find these sources? Regarding the radio piece, it's described as a two-way debate, not an interview. FWIW, we don't have an article on the other candidate in that debate. As for the timing, the article was created in time for the campaign back in March so deleting it during the campaign is not extraordinary. I don't think there is a rule that suspends the deletion of articles on candidates during a campaign. Will Beback talk 03:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Calling it a "debate" or "interview" doesn't enhance nor diminish the actuality of what it is-- we hear a featured discussion between a radio moderator and the person about their candidacy -- i.e, significant coverage. WP:IAR suggests we don't need to recall precedent for every action, nor does every action create precedent -- rather using common sense better serves. In this case, Wikipedia and its readers would have been better served if this discussion had simply waited another 4 weeks, rather than discuss deleting an article at the very moment when someone might want to see it. Given the paucity of information here and its non-controversial nature, there was no pressing need for this. And, frankly, it makes us look a bit foolish. As always, your mileage may vary. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 07:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - While there's no formal rule to keep candidate bios during campaign season, I can see a practical reason for it. I don't object to delaying this AfD For a month. Will Beback talk 13:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree with you. A brief delay would be practical. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 15:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Delay? I don't remember that being an option in AfD's. Either a person is notable or he's not. If you think he may become notable (not likely as the media is reporting it as a two person horse race), you can save the text in your sandbox and resurrect it with new material. I wouldn't count on it though. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Redirect to California gubernatorial election, 2010. He's a perennial but never-elected candidate, who has not managed to attract the kind of news coverage necessary to establish himself as notable. Most of the links are simply election results, establishing that he was on the ballot and got a few percent of the vote. it's hard for a third-party candidate to get the kind of coverage that is needed to pass the notability hurdle, and he has not succeeded in doing so. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable perpetual candidate with no chance of election and insignificant levels of coverage. Ray^Talk 19:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I checked the L.A. Times files, and there is nothing. Sadly (for him), GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Saag. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shaaga (food)

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

Wikipedia is not a cookbook. (This editor is apparently creating multiple pages for non-notable indian cuisine -- somebody with more time than I might want to keep an eye on this) Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 00:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Saag which appears to be the same topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Saag. I agree with the Colonel - that the two articles seem to be about the same range of Indian spinach dishes, rather than a new topic. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 20:31, 11 October 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 Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Small Foot

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

Non-notable GoBots character. All sources in the article are either YouTube videos or Transformers fansites. Delete. Divebomb (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - There really should just be a "List of Gobots Characters" somewhere to direct to. I'd guess this would do Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Guardians Mathewignash (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - To Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Guardians or delete. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Guardians per WP:BEFORE. --Malkinann (talk) 23:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify this, per Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Process, I feel the page history should be retained for the possible creation of a future List of Gobots characters, which would contain this character and others from Category:Gobots. --Malkinann (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Challenge_of_the_GoBots#Characters per WP:BEFORE. --Khajidha (talk) 15:02, 11 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional kangaroos and wallabies

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

Redundant to Category:Fictional kangaroos and wallabies, but practically all the entries have either no article, are redirects to list articles, or redirect to Kangaroo or Wallaby. And - surprise surprise - completely unsourced. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh, no, not list vs. categories wars again. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One doesn't need to even look at the list to know that characters like Kanga, Roo and Skippy are notable and make a reasonable basis for a list. I forget the name of Tank Girl's sidekick but he'll be in there too and many more. The ostensible argument that this is redundant to the category is explicitly refuted by WP:CLS. As for sources, this is feeble wikilawyering. If some entry needs a source then tag it with a {{fact}} tag. Bringing the entire list of AFD is disproportionate disruption contrary to our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep per WP:OTHERSTUFF. Hans Adler 20:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is there such a thing as WP:WTF??? Citing other things that exist is a suspect argument, therefore the strongest possible keep here? I have no strong opinion one way or the other here, but it seems that the axe has been falling on the "List of Fictional BLAHBLAHBLAH" articles pretty heavily. —Carrite, October 8, 2010.

"Per WP:OTHERSTUFF" is my way of saying that this completely non-notable list should be kept by the principle that lists about everything and anything are almost always kept with no regard for the fact that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. In fact, some of the most silly and arbitrary lists even become featured (see WP:FL). It is not a principle I agree with, but sometimes you just have to follow the crowd rather than fight for even application of principles. Especially when there are additional concerns such as WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. I am sure anyone who considers creating a kangaroo character for some purpose will be happy to find this compilation. I am not one of them, but presumably a huge percentage of our readers are, and I definitely enjoy reading such odd lists that are about nice fictional characters for a change, rather than things such as List of celebrities involved with WrestleMania whose title alone makes me want to throw up.

Anyway, it's not as if there are no precedents. In the second AfD of a similarly arbitrary, but much better-written list the creator admitted that it had been a joke and !voted for deletion. One of our most highly respected editors ever (later to become an arbitrator) voted "keep" twice. The end result of the AfD was of course "keep".

All that said, I am feeling a bit uneasy about !voting against my convictions. That's why I have added "strongest possible". "Strongest possible" (!)votes are typically made for no good reason at all and routinely have to be discarded. If I had found any valuable argument for keeping this list I would have marked it as "weak keep" to make sure that the closer reads it and gives it more weight. Hans Adler 06:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hans' instincts are quite sound and WP:OTHERSTUFF is a valid argument when used correctly - just read it. In this case, the thing to understand is that these lists of fictional animals have arisen as a natural splitting of the master list. Fictional animals are quite notable as entire books are written about them such as Talking animals in British children's fiction, 1786-1914 or The Wild Animal Story. It then makes sense to list the notable fictional animals such as Tarka the Otter, Mickey Mouse, &c. There are thousands of them and so it then makes sense to subdivide the list by type of animal and here we are. This matter should not be addressed in a bottom-up way, by attacking the weak members of the pack. Rather it should be considered as a whole and a sensible structure agreed upon. OTHERSTUFF is therefore a very sensible and proper consideration. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Other Stuff Exists" as an argument has an appropriate and inappropriate uses. One obviously inappropriate use is when the presence of an article about something important in a subject is used to justify the existence of things in the same field that are totally unimportant, as when the producer of an insignificant computer program protests that we have an article about Microsoft. Another inappropriate use is when the existence of a few bad articles that have slipped into he encyclopedia is used as a justification for the existence of others equally bad, as when it is asserted that because we have not yet deleted a few articles on insignificant books we should include others on equally insignificant books.
But an appropriate use is when we have many accepted articles on even fairly minor companies in a field, we should have articles on those of demonstrably greater importance. And another appropriate use, is when there is a type of article or subject that is considered generally useful, we should not reject one particular article in the class because it might be slightly weaker. We do not normally interpret the rule about not following precedent to mean that we make every decision anew from first principles. We interpret it to mean that we are not bound by previous bad or erratic decisions, that , for example, because we deleted the article of one type of character in fiction we must delete the articles of all other characters in fiction. Many of the inadequately subtle statements of general rules are based upon our earlier days when we were simply experimenting with making an online encyclopedia. We are no longer experimental, and we now are the overwhelmingly dominant online encyclopedia and for many people the only reference source that they use. This gives us a certain responsibility. Institutions as well as people find themselves--however unwillingly--forced into greater responsibility as they mature. One of the signs of majority is our growing insistence on good sourcing. Another should be our efforts towards consistency. People expect to find things here, on the basis of what they usually find here. We exist to serve them. We're not making an online free encyclopedia as a demonstration project or a game; we're making one for use. DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per discussions like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_fictional_weasels, which establish that directories of fictional whatevers need to prove they can stand on their own just like any other article- there's no inheriting notability from one or two of the individual things on the list that might be notable on their own. A good rough rule to follow is to ask yourself, "If we chopped the words 'List of' from the front of the title, do we get an encyclopedic topic?". That experiment has been tried already with things like this, and shown not to be feasible. Reyk _YO! 00:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but feel free to prune all the non-notable entries that don't link to either the character or the work they appear in. 28bytes (talk) 05:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 09:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CLN. If it's encyclopedic as a category, it's encyclopedic as a list. The claim above that this is a fictional kangaroo "directory" is further evidence of how poorly understood WP:NOTDIR is. Really? It should go right on the shelf next to my telephone directory? NOTDIR is about that kind of directory; exhaustive, real world directories of people and services without regard to notability, like a legal professionals directory. As written, it's clearly meant to prevent the flooding of lists with non-notable entries (List of people from New York City should not list every person who lives there and duplicate the phone book) or non-encyclopedic information (List of law firms in New York should not include telephone numbers and mailing addresses). #1 and #6 are the only parts of WP:NOTDIR that apply at all to indexing lists, and #1 basically just tells us some lists are encyclopedic and others aren't, and #6 warns against trivial cross-categorization of unrelated facts, which doesn't apply here because this list is just a categorization, not a cross-categorization. Obviously a lot of people want to use it to delete lists they don't like, but it just doesn't stretch that far, and WP:NOTDIR just becomes a another acronym to vomit out to give the appearance of having a policy-grounded argument, without adding anything substantive to the discussion. This list functions as an index of Wikipedia articles by a shared fact. Wikipedia is, in part, a "directory" of its own contents. Whether that shared fact is worth documenting in a list is a valid question, but as I noted, if it's conceded that it would make a proper category, then it can't be simultaneously argued that the list is unencyclopedic. postdlf (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Split into Fictional Kangaroos and Fictional Wallabees PortP (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I supported the deletion of the fictional weasels list, the reason being that the weasels list did not have a backbone with regular strong media appearances. This one is different. The problem with these lists is that they're character focused when they should be media focused, all it needs is a proper table format and a switch to focusing on media. Someone another 15:05, 11 October 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 United States House of Representatives elections in Tennessee, 2010#District 6*. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Leming

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

Non-notable failed political candidate. Hairhorn (talk) 18:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:POLITICIAN. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in Tennessee, 2010#District 6* per WP:POLITICIAN. Non notable, but plausible search term, so redirect is called for. Ray^Talk 19:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ray. Sounds like a nice guy, and I'd have voted for him if I lived in his district, but the necessary coverage isn't there to meet WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For what it's worth I added a few more sources. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:43, 15 October 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. PhilKnight (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ServiceMagic

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

Fails WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Article was blatant advertising, which has been cleaned up, but little remains after removal of puffery. Fails notability criteria because is not subject of multiple, nontrivial coverage in reliable sources. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable contractor referral service. Only one article on this web service, in Rocky Mountain News, and one passing reference in Wall Street Journal article. All that remains after that, by way of sources, is the company's own website and its press releases, and passing references in the media. Artcle has been nominated twice for deletion in the past, and in the intervening years no RS sources have materialized. Previous AfDs influenced by large numbers of ghits, but these seem to be mainly complaint board posts and repetitions of company-generated releases. Article has suffered from mislabeled and mischaracterized sources, such as a press release listed as a "Reuters article" and other sources mistitled and not supporting the text. Apparently the iffy sourcing is a product of overt COI editing, and was tagged for that as recently as last month. A review of the page contribution history shows that at least three SPAs, User:Servicemagic (now blocked), User:Sullivar and User:Spidermidget, have been principal contributors to this article over the past year. One was a vocal opponent of the last AfD. Closing administrator is urged to carefully review the contribution history of editors participating in this AfD. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not properly completed. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC) sorry for the goof. ScottyBerg (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a venue for promotion and/or advertising. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though this article has weaknesses, the company is the dominant player in its industry, advertises widely on radio and TV, and has been covered in construction industry trade press. Disclosure - I am a licensed contractor and have done business with this company. Cullen328 (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am willing to change my stance to keep if you can provide multiple, secondary source RS to corroborate with that assertion. Jrcla2 (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was able to quickly find a variety of reliable, independent sources about this company (CNET, Washington Post, MSN, MarketWatch, CBS, Direct Magazine, Fox News, and a variety of others. I've seen the company's ads on NBC, NPR, etc, though I'm not sure how to cite these. A quick search also reveals they won Technology Company of the Year (in Colorado). Per the WP:CORP company criteria, there is also a Hoovers profile. As far as I can tell, there are plenty of reliable sources, notability, etc for WP:CORP and WP:WEB. Combined with ScottyBerg's cleanup, this seems like a good candidate to keep. The article probably needs some additional updating though. --Artlovesyou (talk) 07:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient reliable sourcing about the company, as differentiated from incidental mentions of the subject in articles on other subjects and company-generated publicity. I looked at the links provided just above, and they read like press releases. "Direct Magazine" seems clearly written by the company. ~~CBS and Marketwatch links are duplicates.~~ Lack of in-depth coverage required by the guidelines. Figureofnine (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how the CBS and Marketwatch links are duplicates? They're different stories written by different people, and about a year apart. Saying something "seems clearly written by the company" isn't proof, though I'm okay with being proven wrong here. The other sources combined with a quick look through the "Find Sources" links provided by Wikipedia (news & books especially) clearly pass the assertions of this AfD - the company is clearly notable and passes numerous criteria in WP:CORP and WP:WEB. I looked at the previous AfD nominations, and this has been debated before and kept. Not sure why the same assertions are being debated again. --Artlovesyou (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)— Artlovesyou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - I stand corrected on the duplicate issue, but my concerns remain. The CORP notability guideline requires that subjects of articles be the "subject of significant coverage in secondary sources," and the required depth of coverage is not met. I'm not privy to the earlier discussions, but there were similar concerns regarding this article dating back some years, and I don't believe they have been rectified. The nominator raises COI and SPA concerns regarding the article itself and previous discussions. I can't help but notice that you have a total of 14 edits, all but one today. Figureofnine (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 17:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are multiple nontrivial secondary sources covering the company. To add to the previous list: Businessweek, New York Times, and The Chicago Tribune. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnsonmkj (talk • contribs) 20:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first comes up blank but seems to be a directory listing, the second is a routine corporate announcement quoted in a Times blog, and the third is an incidental mention. I think what's needed is independent coverage about, not just mentioning, this company. Figureofnine (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've expanded the article a bit and added some new sources. The comments made above about how the sources "look" like press releases are unfounded. If they cannot be proven to be press releases, then they must be assumed to be genuine, since they are in reliable sources. And since they are non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources, then the subject is notable and should be kept. Silver seren^C 22:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your comments about articles that look like press releases. It is the responsibility of editors to ascertain if recycled press releases are being used to support notability claims. The St. Louis Business Journal article [7] that you just added to the article is a rewritten press release, with perhaps one paragraph of background added [8]. You may want to reconsider your utilization of that source for the article, as it does not appear to support the footnoted statement. The remainder of the sources cited above by SPAs are clearly trivial coverage. WP:CORP defines trivial coverage as including "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources," and "brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business." That would exclude all of the mentions in the major media. The guideline further says that "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." That would exclude Appliance News, Rocky Mountain News, Denver Post (the company is in Colorado) and Direct. I don't see what's left except the website itself. Figureofnine (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be true, you have yet to show how the St. Louis Business Journal is a "rewritten press release". What press release is it rewritten from? How do you know it is rewritten? If we're going to go down the route you're saying, then I can make the statement that any newspaper article about a company is a press release. Regardless, I added two more, The Washington Post and The New York Times. Silver seren^C 16:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source press release is linked in my comment. Figureofnine (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. But that doesn't change the new sources I found. Silver seren^C 18:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the substantial coverage in reliable sources. This article from the Washington Post and this article from The New York Times provide significant coverage of ServiceBack, thereby establishing notability. Silverseren, thank you for your marvelous work on the article. Cunard (talk) 06:56, 16 October 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) 09:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas and Ferb (season 3)

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

Dubious WP:CRYSTAL. I can't find any reliable sources that verify any of the episode titles; the TV Guide and MSN TV listings are blank. The P&F Wiki doesn't even mention any of the episodes besides the musical one. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...yes it does. Don't touch the sides! Butterfingers! (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO!!!! Phineas and Ferb Season 1 and 2 have their own articles, why should'nt this one? It's coming up very soon. Don't touch the sides! Butterfingers! (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put the titles.:)The Klimpaloon I've done a lot to these mountains since 1883! Let's nang together! 22:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then where are the sources? You absolutely need reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The cited sources do not support the information about the content of the third season. When (if ever) the information is confirmed in reliable sources (or even better, when episodes have actually been broadcast), that is the time for an article. Deor (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Episodes are real, I add the sources from Martin Olson and tv.com. Johnello (talk) 11:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TV.com is not a reliable source. It's entirely user submitted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ADDED THE...is it okay if I use profanity on Wikipedia...THIS IS AWKWARD...LINKS IN EXTERNAL LINKS BEFORE HE/SHE DID!The Klimpaloon I've done a lot to these mountains since 1883! Let's nang together! 14:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)The Klimpaloon who is furious[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This article appeared on my radar a few weeks ago. I cleaned it up as best I could, added {{refimprove}} and have been watching it since. I tried, unsuccessfully, to find sources and there was no attempt by anyone else to add cites until the article was nominated for deletion. As already stated, tv.com is not a reliable source. I'm not sure about soundcloud. Until such time as there is confirmation from reliable sources, such as those I added to the article as general refs, this article should be deleted, or redirected back to the main episode list. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

redirect I know season 3 has been confirmed but there is no other information. The only other info is the movie witch is part of the new season. Season 2 will be emding soon anyway. So just redirct for the time being un till more is reaviled about the season. Once the season is announced or the secondf season finishes its 35 episodes or so it wil be added back. So it will be a better idea to just redirect the page.Saylaveer (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I already have said my word, but there are reliable sources from one of the creators of Phineas and Ferb (well, he at least works with the creators). Some episodes, such as Run Candace Run and Meapless in Seattle have been confirmed by Dan and Swampy in interviews and correspondeces. Also, Season 2 is almost over, and they said that the season should start before February. Don't touch the sides! Butterfingers! (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet none of the reliable sources that you say exist are being added to the article. The citations being used are for songs, not TV episodes. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the songs have announced episodes, because they say that the song is in an episode, making the episode real. It comes from a creator, you know. Don't touch the sides! Butterfingers! (talk) 19:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Unnamed bio-dome episode and the unadded Candace Gets Busted come from Jon Colton Barry, a songwriter on PnF! The Klimpaloon I've done a lot to these mountains since 1883! Let's nang together! 21:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 17:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we already have episode titles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just because it exists does not make it notable. I'm sure that it will become notable as the other seasons have but there are so many other policies that are saying it is too early like WP:CRYSTAL, WP:EPISODE, WP:RS etc... It needs to be deleted and it can be made later. If it gets created again too soon, I recommend salting it. - Pmedema (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. In view of the sources presented by Cunard, the previous "delete" opinions appear moot. Sandstein 11:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Acer Clear.fi

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

Unremarkable product. Doesn't fall under A7. — Timneu22 · talk 15:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One mention in a gadget blog (RS yes, the most reputable of RSes no) does not indicate notability. Rilak (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 17:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. See this article from The Philippine Star, this article from the Philippine Daily Inquirer, this article from funddj.com. These articles demonstrate that Acer Clear.fi passes Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are in addition to this article from PC World, which is already in the article. Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 07:09, 16 October 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 Anonymous (band). Sandstein 11:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter Chaos Begins

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

Non-notable album from a probably not-notable band. See related AfD discussion at Stress (album) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 07:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NALBUMS. no real coverage [9]. LibStar (talk) 11:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the band article which is also at AFD. If the band is kept then the redirect can stay, if the band is deleted then the redirect can be deleted under CSD G8. (or CSD A9 if the band AFD closes as "delete" first) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 17:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anonymous (band) per Ron Ritzman (talk · contribs). A redirect of a likely search term will be helpful to the readers. The AfD for the band, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anonymus (band), was closed as "no consensus". Cunard (talk) 07:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete There's no bar against putting some information into the article about the high school. Mandsford 22:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 McKinley Tiger football

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

Non-notable season for a non-notable team from a barely notable high school. No national standing, no non-local news coverage, fails in just about every way. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC) ~~ GB fan ~~ 16:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Normally high school football teams are not notable, and this team does not appear to be an exception. Nice looking article, though... too bad WP:ILIKEIT is not a reason to keep. I suggest the authors try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - high school footballs teams are not notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a few sentences to President William McKinley High School, high school team seasons aren't notable. But there is no reason to delete the content completely. Secret ^account 02:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to President William McKinley High School#Athletics per Secret. 2010 McKinley Tiger football has three reliable sources, so is not solely composed of original research. Therefore, a merge to the high school article is acceptable per WP:PRESERVE. Cunard (talk) 07:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Consensus has long held that only state championships are worth even a mention in the main article of a high school. This team has not won the state championship. Given that there are over 100,000 big high schools in the US, one can imagine that one could have an article (or redirect) for each sport, for boys and girls, for each year, for each high school, and presto, in no time Wikipedia has between 1 and 100 million new articles or redirects. Abductive (reasoning) 14:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 17:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for above reasons, no need for redirect. --Bejnar (talk) 18:08, 16 October 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 as nomination withdrawn due to sources found by Marasmusine. Harry Blue5 (talk) 18:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FishVille

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

Non-notable game by Zynga. Only has one source right now. Yes, Zynga is popular, but that does not guarantee their games an article. Harry Blue5 (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Fishville is a popular game and deserves some info about it. --Bluedude588 (talk) 22:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep FishVille, being a Zynga game, should bring back lots of sources...plus it has notability for being blocked by Facebook temporarily for advertising violations. [10] [11] Raymie (t • c) 23:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and it had 875,000 users in its first two days alone. Raymie (t • c) 23:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Just because a lot of people play it does not make it notable. Newspapers and such that comment on how lots of people are playing it do. Harry Blue5 (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Zynga. It might become the next FarmVille, but it looks like its main claim to notability at this point is that Facebook wouldn't let you play it. 28bytes (talk) 06:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Switching to keep based on the Gamezebo and IGN sources provided by Marasmusine. 28bytes (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Found a review at Gamezebo (and further news on its suspension), editorial at IGN (and mentioned in other articles), and boom, that's WP:N isn't it? Marasmusine (talk) 09:41, 10 October 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. Deleting as an unsourced BLP per WP:BLP. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wylie Chiu

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

Minor actor lacking GHITs and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER. ttonyb (talk) 15:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No in-depth coverage available. Fails WP:GNG. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:06, 10 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wii Fitness

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

It has been apparently 'announced' in 2007, with a release date of "TBA 2009" that's never been updated. A Google search turns up next to nothing. This is a game that most likely does not even exist and therefore is a dead article. ☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 15:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. —☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 15:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems to have disappeared after being announced in 2007. There is not enough information available now to turn this into anything more than a one line stub and unlikely there ever will be, so deletion is probably best. Yoenit (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source that mentions this in passing isn't enough for a oneline stub. There is not enough to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 17:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Additionally, it seems like the game would be a clear duplicate of the Wii Fit games because all of their activities (cycle, running, yoga, etc.) are all fitness games. That announcement in 2007 may have been for Wii Fit, because it came out a year after that (2008) (this game may have been an original beta title for that game).trainfan01 15:36, October 8, 2010 (UTC)
Comment According to IGN, it is still TBA. Here's an article for it from 2007. It says that it was already released in Japan. I'm quite sure that article is not talking about Wii Fit, since that cam out on December 1 in Japan, after this article was made. Thus, there's a bit of confusion here. Silver seren^C 23:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think even if this WAS a real game, its article can be remade when there's enough notability or information about it. --☆ Antoshi ☆ ^{T | C} 13:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Times On Line reference, they do a brief mention of some of the activities and they include the Ski Jump simulator, the ball header, the yoga poses and the Hula, which are all present in Wii Fit (which is simply the same title with "ness" taken off). trainfan01 14:59, October 9, 2010 (UTC)
Delete. I can't find any evidence that this even exists, let alone is notable. 28bytes (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wii Fit Purple backpack89 20:25, 15 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yazino

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

Article on an online gaming company that sits right on the cusp of speedy deletion. There are two sources cited in the article, but they're small blurbs rather than substantial coverage. The major flaw, though, is that notability of the subject is not demonstrated—not every company that designs/runs online games is notable. —C.Fred (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and agree that it's almost a speedy delete. Amusingly, for an article with virtually no information it contradicts itself on where the headquarters is. :-) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In a way, it's unfortunate for the smaller and/or newer companies that the bigger and/older ones stand a better chance of an article. However, that's because that's the way things work here. If you're new or small, you have to work harder at finding better refs. (If you're bigger and older, someone's already made the article - and you're trying to remove the unflattering bits...). I did nominate it for speedy, but have no objection if anyone can show it's really notable. Peridon (talk) 15:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find significant coverage to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 17:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete; purely self-promotion, and no references. --mhking (talk) 22:42, 12 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SWGEmu

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

Article tagged with notability and refimprove since August, no change. Couldn't find and reliable, significant coverage to pass WP:GNG. Recommending WP:SALT as well since it has been recreated multiple times without being able to pass notability guidelines. --Teancum (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 11:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article's sources are unacceptable. I could not find any other coverage beyond forum chatter. I agree with SALT, as the article has been deleted 8 times already. Marasmusine (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Concur, I can't find any reliable sources. That said, a notable retail game being restored in this manner might have some notability - but only when it is released. Even then, you'd need significant coverage in reliable sources to pass muster. I agree, also, that this should be SALTed. This doesn't mean that an article (with sources showing notability) couldn't be put together at a later date, but just that you'd need consensus at deletion review to do so. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:52, 11 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cubs Browser

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

Unremarkable product, advert, no sources or third-party coverage. — Timneu22 · talk 14:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found lots of sites with it hosted. One had 587 downloads of it. Jntg4Games (talk) 14:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and you wrote the article. Please see WP:N and WP:RS to understand why this articles does not appear to meet inclusion standards. — Timneu22 · talk 14:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet notability requirements; I cannot find any significant coverage in reliable sources Chzz ► 14:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable software project. OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 17:18, 10 October 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 Stanisław Burzyński. Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Burzynski Clinic

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

Borderline WP:SPAM; all information contained is already well covered in antineoplaston and Stanisław Burzyński; clinic is not notable per WP:COMPANY, apart from its association with the doctor and the treatment. Redirect to antineoplaston reverted by article's creator. Top Jim (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Top Jim (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim has sat here all morning posting various templates on this wiki article prior to his redirect. he didn't even try to discuss before the redirect. now a deletion? i'm not sure how i got on his bad side but i'm sure he's in the wrong here. the clinic is a building in america where people go for various treatments. not just the treatment he wants to redirect the page to. i am adding more info later today. it would be like redirecting antineoplaston to the alternative cancer page in my opinion. --Humanfeather (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did try to discuss it with you, but you deleted the thread from your talk page. Top Jim (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stanisław Burzyński. No evidence that the company meets WP:COMPANY or even the WP:GNG, but I can see this as a valid search term. Karanacs (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i will try to meet the guidelines. Jim, there was not a discussion deleted. you told me what where doing with big icons and put it on the TOP of my page. i did suggest you help fix it rather than place maint templates all over it. i deleted nothing in the discussion on the article page. --Humanfeather (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article's not "your page": please see WP:OWNER. Also, the top of the page is the correct place for maintenance templates. Top Jim (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you know what i mean. --Humanfeather (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per User:Karanacs. Attempts at sourcing do not indicate that WP:CORP is met. The mention at the individual's article is legitimate and this would be a reasonable redirect. --Kinu ^t/_c 16:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

at the time it was redirected, it may have been resonable. I should have finished in my sandbox but i messed around with the article live and that was a mistake and won't happen again. however, since then I have added outside sources and am now adding more to show multiple independent sources to establish notability. --Humanfeather (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used do not demonstrate notability. Most are self-published webistes (including several to the clinic website) or blogs (not reliable at all). The NYT article discusses a movie about the doctor, not the clinic itself. I have seen no independent reliable sources that discuss the clinic itself (not the treatment or the doctor) in any level of detail. Karanacs (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The sources do not indicate notability, and most of the text should only be in antineoplaston or Stanisław Burzyński even if the clinic were notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, it is a duplication/split-off of the Stanisław Burzyński article. Cacycle (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article on the clinic's owner/founder. Most small businesses are handled this way on Wikipedia. (I've done some clean up and de-spamming work, but am not watching the page; the closing admin should feel free to drop me a note if a volunteer is needed to make the merge happen.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 13 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otago University Rowing Club

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

While a good article, I feel that this rowing club doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion outlined at WP:ORG. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A club with a history as long as this club has, who has members selected for the national squad and competing in world championships, is bound to have been noticed in reliable sources. It may need someone in NZ to find them. I have started the process. This article can be improved. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:59, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article definitely needs to be improved but basic premise for notability seems reasonable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:50, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 02:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it's a good article then we should keep it because it is our policy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and we preserve promising material. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you have failed to address how this article meets WP:N or WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited multiple policies which trump discretionary guidelines. The sources provided seem adequate to determine that deletion of this good material is not sensible. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above, otherwise smerge this and the other recent club and society articles into Clubs and societies of the University of Otago Grutness...wha? 00:12, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 3 gnews hits and notthing outside of Otago. [12]. LibStar (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The NZ National squad site is outside Otago. Surely the World Championship rowers have been noticed in national newspapers. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

provide sources then. LibStar (talk) 02:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a couple, but it is difficult for someone outside the country to find sources earlier than last year, It is really up to the Kiwis, but it does appear that this Club is one of the top NZ University Clubs. It needs work over a period as it does assert notability. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:00, 12 October 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 already deleted, G11. — Timneu22 · talk 12:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strategy execution

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

Reads like an essay, seems like WP:OR, arrives at a conclusion. Not an encyclopedic entry. — Timneu22 · talk 12:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 12:43, 8 October 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) 09:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ChipGold

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

Advert for product. Lacking in any third-party references. If there is a generic term for this, perhaps a redirect to a section in Gold bar would be more appropriate than this article. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources or references, apparently advertising of a product. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 13:35, 8 October 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) 00:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Peacocks

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

Article on band with unsourced claims of notability: having gone on tour in Europe and making appearance in North America. Google News returns only trivial mentions of the band name. Kimchi.sg (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 07:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BAND - No significant coverage in reliable third party sources to prove notability.Spatulli (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I found multiple mentions in The Jerusalem Post about their album releases on Oleh! Records, and this article in particular has significant coverage. Meets WP:BAND criterion #1. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems to me like an interview, and thus doesn't meet WP:BAND criterion #1. Spatulli (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Spatulli. I think the part of WP:BAND to which you're referring was included to help ensure that other types of non-independent publications (along the lines of press releases) were not used to try to establish notability. That's not the case with the article linked above, which is an article about the band published in a major newspaper. The writers and the editors made the decision that there would be enough reader interest to include a moderately long article solely about the band in their newspaper; I think that's the general idea behind criterion #1. Most arts writers who write a lengthy article about a musician or band will include some interviews if possible; that the Post article has interviews as part of it is neither here nor there. Other articles in the Post that mention Midnight Peacocks—"Musicians signed with Oleh! Records include hardcore rockers Midnight Peacocks", "Hardcore rockers the Midnight Peacocks are about to drop their highly anticipated, Oleh!-aided second album", "'hard core oriental band' the Midnight Peacocks", "self-styled Israeli "circus-core" rockers, the Midnight Peacocks" and so on—would not be enough on their own to establish notability, but combined with the feature article I think the bar of notability is passed here. There's room for some disagreement in a case like this; I do recognize that. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 16:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi Paul Erik, thanks for replying. I don't agree. If I understand the Wp:BAND criterion #1 right, it states that "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, ... EXCEPT for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising", and thus I do not think that this statement is referring ONLY to non-independent sources, but to ANY source as explicitly stated "Except... any other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves". I understand that you may think that it might seem notable because it gets mentionings in a newspapers, but IMO, the bar of notability isn't passed according to the wp:BAND criteria. Spatulli (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you're arguing the letter rather than the spirit of criterion #1. See the discussion about the text you've quoted at Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 12#Criteria for musicians and ensembles, for example. If that doesn't help, then I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        O.k. There was no real "conclusion" to this debate. Well, if you decide not to abide by the rules, it's your issue. Spatulli (talk) 22:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is one of the most notable Israeli alternative bands. It released two albums. I added several links to establish notability; you can find many more if you google the name "מידנייט פיקוקס" in Hebrew. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment did you read the notability criteria for bands? It says : ""This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, ... EXCEPT for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves, and all advertising that mentions the musician or ensemble, including manufacturers' advertising". ALL the links you put there ([13],[14]) without exception, include principally an interview with the band members. The third one doesn't even talk about them (ony a discography, no words about them). Thus the band still doesn't pass WP:BAND. Sorry. Sincerely, Spatulli (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Spatulli, again I think you are misunderstanding that part of the guideline. Have you read Wikipedia talk:Notability (music)/Archive 12#Criteria for musicians and ensembles? It makes it quite clear that articles based primarily around an interview were not meant to be discounted in the way you suggest. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that Paul Eric's interpretation of criterion 1 of WP:BAND makes sense. The whole idea behind the concept of "notability" is that someone else has "taken note" of a subject and ideally that "someone else" should be a journalist/reporter working for a news organization with editorial oversite. If musicians are writing about themselves on blogs, facebook, and myspace pages, then that's not "notability" because they're only "taking note" of themselves. However, if an independent journalist decides to write about them and that coverage happens to include an interview, then "someone else" has "taken note" of them and that's the kind of notability we need. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is exactly the kind of in-depth coverage that we require, in a top newspaper. The exception in WP:BAND obviously doesn't apply; someone seems to have poor reading comprehension. I haven't seen more articles of this kind, but I trust that that's because I haven't searched for them and don't read Hebrew. The quality of the one source makes it almost certain that others exist that make this band or whatever it is pass the "multiple" criterion. Hans Adler 13:55, 8 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flex-A-Bed

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

I can't find any reliable sources that show that this company is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 02:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a case of someone trying to make an article simply because something exists. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or perhaps use as a (possibly spammy) example in adjustable bed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 13 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ebocube business model

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

Author contests prod. No assertion of importance / significance. --ZhongHan (Email) 11:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails general notability guideline. There is only this source, which discusses this term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, COI spam for non-notable neologism. Hairhorn (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.
YOUR ONLINE BUSINESS HAS
4 SIMULTANEOUS ASPECTS
IN 24 HOUR ROTATIONS
Evil Editors
block and suppress Ebocube
because non notable neologism
and article says nothing substantive about it anyways
They are EDUCATED EVIL
- Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:56, 10 October 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 --Mike Cline (talk) 08:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kogswell Cycles

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

This boutique bicycle frame maker has a couple of write-ups of its products in the specialist Bicycle Quarterly, which I don't think is enough to pass WP:CORP. Other than that, there is no sourcing upon internet searching (180 Google hits) and no particular claim of notability. Deleted and salted as spam prior to this edition. Prodded and deprodded by User:UnitedStatesian. Abductive (reasoning) 09:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Tolerably non-commercial in tone, which is one of the keys to business-related articles. It seems that Kogswell is an established name in the cycling world, its products extensively reviewed {ONE EXAMPLE FROM BIKING.COM}, which gets it over the notability bar for me. The article might be improved with additional information, such as THIS INTERVIEW WITH KOGSWELL'S MATTHEW GRIMM. —Carrite, Oct. 8, 2010.

I added a reference to the review in Biking.com here.

Keep - Kogswell was also mentioned in the September 2010 issue of Bicycle Times. The largest article in the magazine is about building a commuter bike around a Kogswell frame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.111 (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added a reference to the Bicycle Times article in the P/R mkII section. Thanks for the tip. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per User:UnitedStatesian's reasoning in deprodding the article, the Bicycle Quarterly references are enough to establish notability. More cites, based on suggestions in this thread, will help also. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trade/specialist publications all. Anyway, they make products reviewers like, but what encyclopedic information is there? Abductive (reasoning) 18:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the media outlets referenced are trade magazines. Are they "specialist" publications? Maybe so, in that they are all dedicated to bicycles and bicycling. However, by that line of reasoning, "Road and Track" is a "specialist" publication in that it is dedicated to automobiles. In any case, the sources referenced are reliable secondary sources, and seem to meet criteria as laid out in WP:CORP, which does not mention the word "specialist." Ebikeguy (talk) 19:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." I think that these bike magazines are of limited interest and circulation. If they had the circulation of Car and Driver (1.31 million) then I would of course reconsider. Abductive (reasoning) 19:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you draw the line? None of the references are from "Local Media," and Bicycle Quarterly and Biking.com are widely read. They don't have the readership of Road and Track, but they have a very significant readership, none-the-less. Ebikeguy (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Bicycling (magazine) has a circulation of 2.1 million. Has this Kogswell Cycles been reviewed by them? Abductive (reasoning) 20:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could point to countless media outlets that have NOT reviewed countless entities with Wikipedia articles, but doing so would be pointless. What counts is that real, significant media outlets have written articles about Kogswell, establishing its notability well beyond minimum Wikipedia requirements, according to the opinions of all who have voted thus far. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet that those outlets have tiny circulations. Heck, Bicycle Quarterly looks like it might not be notable itself. Abductive (reasoning) 22:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Trade and specialist press is quite satisfactory for our purposes. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I removed my prod of the article after the author promised to add the Bicycle Quarterly refs., which I now realize was premature: Bicycle Quarterly is a self-published ~~website~~ magazine, and describing it as "trade press" is a big, big stretch. The refs. in the article currently are the company's website (not independent), a blog post (not reliable), and three refs. from the aforementioned problematic Bicycle Quarterly. In sum, does not pass WP:CORP. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Bicycle Quarterly is a print magazine, not a website. It has a very significant circulation and is cited by many articles in Wikipedia dealing with bicycle design and testing. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is its circulation figure? Abductive (reasoning) 20:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Statement of Ownership, Management and Circulation in vol. 9, no. 1 (Autumn 2010), p. 15, an average of 6075 copies of each issue were printed in vol. 8, with an average total paid distribution of 3572 copies. The publisher prints a substantial number of copies to keep in stock because many new subscribers want to buy the backfile. The magazine's original title was Vintage Bicycle Quarterly, and the focus is still on vintage bicycles, the history of cycling, and reviews of modern bicycles that in one way or another hark back to earlier design principles, such as the Kogswell P/R. BWOgilvie (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bicycle Times coverage of a Kogswell commuter bicycle was also featured on the cover. That magazine has a circulation of around 50k according to http://www.dirtragmag.com/mediakit/demo.php. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.111 (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Carrite arguments. Needs to be improved and more RS but no reason do delete.-Mariordo (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved editor to close, please

This discussion has been up for a week, and I think it has run its course. Could an uninvolved editor please review the posted opinions and close this discussion with an appropriate closing notice? Many thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has shown that the circulation of the reviewing print magazine has a circulation of 6000 or less, and a "review" in a shopping website, biking.com (buy some seats here), and more people than the nominator have asked for it to be deleted. The underlying reason this article was nominated for deletion remains; there's nothing special about this small company. Abductive (reasoning) 17:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reference to a cover story featuring a Kogswell bicycle from a major magazine with a circulation of ~50K has been added. Additionally, Bicycle Quarterly, the magazine referenced in the previous comment, should also be viewed as a reliable source. It has a circulation of several thousand and is widely recognized as an important source of bicycle testing and design analysis. It is used as a reference for several Wikipedia articles dealing with bicycle design and other technical issues. Opinions in this discussion have been nearly unanimous that Wikipedia should keep this article. The only dissenting voice is from an editor who previously prodded this article and has not voiced any opinion about it since the additional references were added. Ebikeguy (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are monitored and closed by admins on schedule. There is no need to call for a close. Abductive (reasoning) 18:15, 15 October 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) 09:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Beast

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

Non-notable WP:BIO, WP:GNG - rapper with only mixtape releases. This was deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Beast in 2008, hence when I used proposed deletion that was rejected "articles previously deleted through AFD cannot be prodded" (although that was a previous version)...anyway. Not notable, no reliable sources and I cannot find any. Chzz ► 09:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. No real claim to notability presented. either way (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nomination. And rewrite the prod-instructions so recreated, previously deleted articles about living people can be prodded due to lack of sourcing, or else this is stupid. Notice the heavy argumentation: "Or else!" :-) Greswik (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Comment: I retract this, I don't agree with myself. Greswik (talk) 14:27, 15 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Long Bay Symphony Orchestra

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

no sources, no indication of why this orchestra is notable Dlabtot (talk) 08:34, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A professional symphony orchestra with more than 600 hits in Google News archives.[15] Here is an article about their 23rd season, just commenced.[16] --Arxiloxos (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. —Arxiloxos (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been notified to WikiProject Classical music. Voceditenore (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Clearly is notable per the guidelines at WP:Music. To the nominator, please take the time to do some internet searches for sources before nominating an article at AFD. A two minute search would have made it apparent that this article should never have been nominated for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply asserting that they are notable is rather pointless. Why don't you try demonstrating that notability instead? What are the sources that indicate notability? Dlabtot (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No speedy keep please. Let the AFD discussion continue. Yes, the local newspaper in Myrtle Beach has lots of substantial coverage of the local symphony over a period of many years, and maybe the local TV station or some website about the town has coverage. This is comparable to what we see in articles about some college musical group in the college paper, but it is argued strongly that such solely local coverage in the college venue is not evidence of notability. Should we require more independent coverage from media not so tied in to promoting local cultural efforts? Perhaps lots of coverage in local media just shows local importance, and only justifies a mention in the article about the locality. Edison (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why is a professional symphony orchestra with a serious concert season considered non-notable? This is a waste of other editors' time. Opus33 (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have a notability criteria: WP:MUSIC. Being "a professional symphony orchestra with a serious concert season" is not part of it. Can you point to: "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable"? Or any of the other critieria? If not, please stop "wasting other editor's time" with baseless and unsupported assertions of notability. Dlabtot (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of hectoring people with these demands to point to multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable, why not follow the links in the first reply to your nomination, which lead to those very sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – A professional orchestra with a history of regular seasons; sufficient newspaper coverage. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above - established orchestra and clearly notable. Eusebeus (talk) 10:05, 10 October 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) 09:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ranjit Singh Preet

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

Looks like a self-promotion or/and COI. See little to support why this individual is notable.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there are no reliable sources, and thus he is a non-notable author. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rastko Pocesta

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

This youngster appears to be a case of WP:ONEEVENT, and no encyclopaedic notability Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:TOOSOON. Eddie.willers (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Note also that he is registered as User:Rastko Pocesta and that he edited the article [17]. I will make a deletion notice for him as well. No such user (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Insufficient coverage to demonstrate notability, under any relevant guideline ~ mazca ^talk 00:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mars Explorer (Computer game)

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

This article appears to fail the WP:GNG as well as the more specific WP:PRODUCT and WP:WEB guidelines for notability. Searching GNews and GBooks shows no matches for this computer game and the only sources added to the article are either self published or game reviews that do not address the requirement for significant impact. One 2008 award has been mentioned in the article (Unity) but this was a mention along with twelve others for 'special recognition' which is a category they created that year for games not winning the planned awards (there were 70 nominations). It should also be noted that Unity is not a games market/industry award but limited to the those games created with Unity's game development tools, consequently not suitable as evidence of notability. Earlier templates for improvement have been removed without discussion or satisfactory improvement and a previous PROD deleted, so raising for wider discussion. Fæ (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fæ (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Fæ (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:WEB and WP:V. None of the sources meet the WikiProject Video games list of sources. I even tried the WPVG custom Google search and found only forum posts, trivial mentions, and numerous references to the real-life rovers. Wyatt Riot (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage from reliable sources. --Teancum (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on duplicates - It should be noted that this AfD applies to any and all name variation duplicates of the text such as those recently created over prior redirects at Mars Explorer (Game) and Mars Explorer (video game). Fæ (talk) 15:33, 15 October 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 SM Supermalls#Branches in Philippines. Redirect target can be changed editorially if appropriate. But consensus is that this does not currently need an article. Sandstein 11:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SM Supercenter Candelaria

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

Procedurally completing broken AfD nomination; rationale by Arthurchanning (talk · contribs) was "delete hearsay mall. No source that this mall will be built"

For my part, I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say, redirect this one and most all other places so conveniently listed in {{SMPH}} to the parent company article, SM Prime Holdings. These malls can be listed in tabular format there, but they hardly deserve anything else. If it's not obvious, most are quite small, run-of-the-mill buildings in 100-200,000 sq.m. range. SM City North EDSA claims that it's the country's largest at a modest 460,000 sq.m. Fine, keep it! But the small ones must go. Rationale: no coverage in RS apart from corporate releases and routine local adverizing. East of Borschov 06:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redir - to the table in SM Supermalls until such time as Cites can be found. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 08:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 9 October 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. But Keep, for Squarespace. -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Krystyn Heide

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

Self-promoting autobiography of blogger, web designer. Subject fails general notability guideline, WP:BIO. Zero third-party coverage in reliable sources.

Related nomination of a promotional article created by the same user, an employee of the company that is the subject of the article. Subject fails primary criteria of WP:CORP. One Reuters blog post is cited in the article; the other principal source is drawn from an article in http://www.crunchbase.com, which appears to be an open wiki:

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

-- Rrburke (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any opinion with regards to the Heide article, but I completely re-wrote the Square space article (which should be located at Squarespace); this is the last version of the article as worked on by Squaregirl (talk · contribs), and though I used the provided sources, I used absolutely zero of the prose or editorial contributions of the concerned editor (I have, in fact, removed the {{coi}} from the article for this reason). The article currently cites Crunchbase, Fast Company magazine, a Reuters' published blog, an article from TechCrunch, National Public Radio, and two primary sources for details. Furthermore, I haven't had the time recently to peruse the 583 Google News results, nor the 1,130,000 straight Google hits the templates in this very discussion provide. Between the reliable sources already in the article (not mentioned in the nomination), and the many more available (of which I will avail myself when I have the time soon), I argue to keep (and move) the article at Square space. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 04:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Krystyn Heide - fails WP:BIO but keep Square space since this meets the requirements of WP:CORP. (Not sure these can really both be dealt with in one debate, but we'll see). Smartse (talk) 12:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She's nothing more than an insignificant blogger who incorrectly believes she can make something of herself by penning a WP entry in violation of WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Qworty (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Krysten Heide - I can not find significant coverage of her in reliable sources, but Keep Squarespace as there is significant coverage of the company ~~ GB fan ~~ 07:48, 8 October 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. NW (Talk) 16:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meria Heller

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

Contested PROD. PROD tag remover added one small source but edit summary said notability was still dubious. This BIO just doesn't cut the mustard. Existing sources are self-published, google searches would appear to be numerous but they end up as being more self-published stuff. She's a byline, not a subject. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional. As good as unsourced Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 26 September 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 02:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. Oh my God, the article is just terrible, violating WP:RS, WP:N, WP:AUTO, WP:COI, WP:Single-purpose account and the list can go on and on. It is a prime example of what doesn't belong on WP. It even includes a list of self-published "books." Bleh. This atrocity should have been speedied a long time ago. Qworty (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is not significant coverage of her in reliable sources to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ 07:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's no doubt about the consensus here but the behavior of a few of the participants here toward the article's creator was uncalled for. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Hundred Thousand Hearts

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

Delete article reads like an advertisement and has been proded a number of times by different users. article author has not significantly improved the article before removing prod tags. content bears striking resemblance to many of its sources none of which appear to meet WP:RS or indicate WP:NOTE beyond local coverage. article author has also referred to themself as "I" in edit summaries, denoting a probable WP:COI. WookieInHeat (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:Notability (films). 69.181.249.92 (talk) 03:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We brought in a professional writer and did a complete rewrite from the original post. Any unintended advertisement was removed and notability has been thoroughly supported. Please review the new posting. We respectfully object to this page being deleted. Please refer to Wikipedia post http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicko which is an excellent example of an accepted documentary post on Wikipedia. Thank you. O1huthhes (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We also respectfully note to Administrators that according to "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved", we were not given a chance by the editors who want us deleted to improve the post. We logged on and found the deletion notice this evening, and began to follow all of the Wikipedia advice immediately. When we began to edit the pages and removed the deletion notice, as instructed, a Speedy Deletion notice appeared instantaneously. We called over a professional writer, who has worked on this and it has improved dramatically and significantly. We have done all of this in the space of the past few hours. And according to "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." This is a brand-new documentary. There are no other articles on it, we checked. O1huthhes (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We submit the Houston Chronicle newspaper as a third party source, and Houston Pet Talk Magazine as a third party source, and Houston Dog Blog as a third party source, and these are linked on the page under Media. Why did the editors miss this? We have a trailer of the film at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMuu9GHdlto We also found this on notability: 'A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in any of the subject-specific guidelines listed in the box on the right.' Films. We meet those criteria. We also found this on notability "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." A press release in Houston's largest pet magazine is not a trivial mention so we pass this test of notability. And on the concern that it was an advertisement, that was just Poor Writing and nothing blatant, and according to Wikipedia policy, we are allowed to rewrite and re-edit. So the seeming two editors that want us deleted are Not following Wikipedia's own "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved" policy. And lastly, the editor objecting to the use of the word "I" in typing, that is just human. How many people can fit at a keyboard? One. We have a several people here, reading, researching, trying to abide by Wikipedia rules, while it seems the editors themselves are not doing so, by giving us no time to rewrite or re-edit before suggesting a Speedy Deletion. This documentary is as valid an entry as Michael Moore's Sicko, but we are a not-for-profit endeavor with this documentary. To the Administrators who will make the decision, please look at the time line that this has occured in this day. We rewrote it as fast as we could. Thank you. O1huthhes (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't miss those, but they don't satisfy the notability criteria for films. And wiki-lawyering about process isn't going to change the merits of the article. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong DELETE. Violates WP:RS, WP:COI, WP:Single-purpose account, and many other policies. This is a thoroughly insignificant, non-notable film, and the people who made it aren't even trying to hide the fact that they're trying to manipulate their way to notability by writing an article about their own project! However, this one laughable line from the article tells you everything you need to know about how insignificant this movie is: "One Hundred Thousand Hearts premiered on September 26, 2010 at the main branch of the downtown Houston Public Library, 4th floor theater." Wow. I am so impressed. Qworty (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says "It is impossible for a newcomer to be completely familiar with all of the policies, guidelines, and community standards of Wikipedia before they start editing . . . In fact, it has been found that newcomers are responsible for adding the majority of lasting content to Wikipedia" We aren't sure what "wiki-lawyering" is that you called us, but in the Wikipedia guidelines, it says that we should support our statements with the guidelines. "Please do not bite the newcomers" We are newcomers, and we are working very hard to do what it takes to correct our page. It's 1am and we all have to go to work. So if you have not succeeded in having us deleted by tomorrow, we will return with more evidence that we are legitimate and deserve to have this small page in Wikipedia. O1huthhes (talk) 05:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again, Wikipedia says "do not slam the newcomer. Remember, this is a place where anyone may edit and therefore it is in every sense each person's responsibility to edit, rather than to criticize or supervise others. Do not use bad manners or swear at newcomers, or they may not want to contribute to this website again" Why would you ridicule us? What power do you want to have by being rude? We have nothing to hide. This event was a piece of history in Houston, and you laugh at the library theater, have you been there and seen how many people it seats? I hope the Administrators of Wikipedia are more polite than the couple of editors who have written here. We will continue tomorrow. O1huthhes (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You can come back here every day until the discussion closes and post thousands of words about yourselves, but the fact is that your film fails WP:Notability (films). No amount of typing in this space on your part is going to change that fact. So spin your wheels all you want. Qworty (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says: "The general guideline for notability shared by most of the subject-specific notability guidelines and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, is that: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." We will bring this. Since we are human and must rest and go to work, we will return at a later time. And that is not spinning our wheels. We had no idea that editors were allowed to be so rude. Why would editors, given the privilege of editing, not make constructive remarks, help, and build up? Instead of tear down, ridicule, and make fun of. I doubt that is the intention of Wikipedia. Good night.O1huthhes (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you set the tone by complaining about the process, and by extension those who followed the process. But back to the reason this page exists - to evaluate the article. I don't feel it passes the criteria laid out in WP:Notability (films). Can you point to evidence that it meets any of the five general principles or other evidence of notability? 'Cause I ain't seein' it. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 08:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have never complained about the process. We have pointed out that the editors were having bad manners, which is against Wikipedia standards . . . "Do not use bad manners or swear at newcomers, [etc]" 67.65.165.11 (talk) 09:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NF, WP:COI. No evidence this is notable outside the local area. Redfarmer (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Redfarmer, for your professionalism. It is appreciated, and much easier to deal with than bad manners. Euthanasia is a serious problem across the entire country http://www.americanhumane.org/about-us/newsroom/fact-sheets/animal-shelter-euthanasia.html To say it is of local interest would be like saying that the only place where health care problems exist, was where Michael Moore filmed. We filmed in the city that has the highest euthanasia rate per capita of any city in America. O1huthhes (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to TheTito for your professionalism. I do not have a shared account, I have a professional writer came over to help re-write the original post. I had two friends via skype looking up Wikipedia data to help solve and understand the problems and issues I've been told are wrong. I started out using the pronoun "I" and an earlier editor suggested I was SPA because I used the word "I" So I started using "we", not knowing what proper protocol. I'm simply new and trying to learn quickly and do things correctly. I sure appreciate seeing you and Redfarmer here, I was beginning to think all editors were allowed to ridicule and have bad manners with no consequences. Are there consequences for bad manners?

"Shared account I noticed on your comments in the deletion discussion of One Hundred Thousand Hearts you repeatedly used the pronoun we. If you are sharing an account, please stop as it is a violation of username policy. If you not sharing an account, kindly disregard this message. Thanks. TheTito Discuss 09:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)"

- The problem is that while the issue of euthanasia is certainly notable, the film itself is not. I strongly urge you to read the notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability (films)#General principles, which are the criteria the article will ultimately be judged on. In short, the film must be widely distributed and received reviews from at least two nationally known critics, be historically significant, received a major industry award, be selected for preservation in a national archive, or the film itself be taught as part of an accredited university's film program. Your film does not appear currently to satisfy those criteria. Plus the apparent conflict of interest and continued insinuations that you're having a professional writer help you rewrite the article are troubling, as they represent direct violations of Wikipedia editing guidelines. Redfarmer (talk) 10:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "We brought in a professional writer" - quite often not a good idea on Wikipedia. Still, it's your money... (Disclaimer: I am a writer, but do all my work here on Wikipedia for free.) Anyway, very non-notable film, and at two hours I can't see this subject being viewed by the unconverted very much. The three references given in the article are no help. None of them even mention the film - and the Wikipedia one is not a reliable source WP:RS. I do wish the film success (even though I can't see it happening) and would be quite happy for a return of an article on the subject if it does achieve more than it seems to have so far. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and also that notability is often not achieved overnight (or even in three weeks...). If it does come back, read the policies, get the references that do more than just mention the film in passing, ask an editor with a good list of contributions for advice - and don't waste money on outside writers. We'll tidy things up if needed. (Some of the 'professionally written' things I've seen here have been amongst the lowest level writing I've seen outside schools. This is written well enough, but is far too long and detailed - and a bit soapboxy WP:SOAPBOX. Peridon (talk) 10:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, SPA means Single Purpose Account - one created for one purpose only (which is usually promotional or to try to hide multiple voting). All accounts should be Single Person (OK, married ones too, but each partner should have their own account...) and not be joint or company run. There are no objections to accounts being single purpose for genuine editing. There are objections to accounts being corporate. To all this, the principle of Conflict of Interest WP:COI applies. Articles ideally are 'about', not 'by'. It is hard to stick to WP:NPOV (neutral point of view) when you are very close to a subject. Peridon (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Peridon. That input is helpful. The term professional writer was misused on my part, it was my neighbor who tutors kids in school that I dragged out of bed to help me understand "a neutral perspective" and "no advertising" and all the other parameters. And she abandoned me hours ago. I wrote it myself and she helped by explaining things to me. I am the only user on the account. O1huthhes (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Redfarmer, thank you for your concern about COI, and I did re-read those links. Regarding COI, "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." My aim *was* to write a proper article, and a neutral article, and a reliable source. So there was no conflict of interest. And I tried my best to do that. Through your effort and Peridon's effort, I see the irreconcilable flaw, and I just wish I had simply waited to post the article for after the documentary goes on television in Nov/Dec. I jumped the gun. Live and Learn. Monday morning Quarterbacking. Thank you, Peridon, for your feedback, very helpful. And if anyone else feels the need to be rude or have bad manners, could you just let it go? I concede. Delete at will. Thank you O1huthhes (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable film (premiered at a public-use room at a library? come on.) It isn't even on IMDB. And the self-promotion/COI/SPAM issues are impossible to ignore. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've reverted an attempt at blanking by O1huthhes. The article is part of Wikipedia and not a personally-sponsored marketing piece and needs to be kept or deleted through normal channels. I have no opinion as to notability of the film and wish the filmmaker the best. —Carrite, Oct. 8, 2010.
For what it's worth, the Houston Public Library says they don't have a theatre on the 4th floor (or anywhere else) but they do have meeting rooms. I doubt that's going to have any big impact on the AFD at present, but I figured I'd get it out there in the interest of accuracy. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From their website, [18], their largest room has a capacity of 132 persons. There are theaters that small, even movie theaters that small, and I suppose if a a community meeting room is used to show a movie, you could call it a movie theater for the time being. "We used their meeting room ads a theater" is a perfectly plausible sentence. But writing it the way this article does in an indication of promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete, possibly speedy as a G11 promotional aarticlethat would require fundamental rewriting. The only reason I'm not doing it right now is that RHaworth reviewed it initially ,and prodded it instead. I generally delete articles like this when I encounter them at speedy; I have been known to rewrite them, but there's a limited number I can do (like one a day, maybe) so I only do it if the subject is really important and there are reasonably good sources to use for the rewriting. This is not anywhere near important enough that I would do it when there are so many much more important subjects that need articles. there's no reason to think it notable -- there is no attention whatsoever outside of Houston pet circles. The sources are inadequate to show notability . The Houston Chronicle one is a fake--it's a personal blog liked to from the newspaper's pets section, and carries this disclaimer "NOTE: Our members are responsible for this content, which is not edited by the Chronicle" The other ones are not just special inters sources, which would indeed be OK, nor just local, which can be OK, but local special interest sources, which cannot be used for notability , since they;ll typically publicize anything relevant, regardless of importance. They serve an important function, which is the exchange of local specialized information--but that's about at the opposite end of the spectrum from a world-wide general encyclopedia. Now, the rewritten article is still promotional: excessive detail, general discussion of the importance of the topic the film is about rather than the topic of the film, using as many names as possible and using full titles every time, appeals to the reader, such as "The film also focuses on what individuals can do to help make a difference in their communities," and general claims of good intentions "formed by a group of attorneys who loved animals and wanted to make a difference", and PR jargon, such as "wanted to make a difference" , "focuses on" " 'ordinary' people" (their quotes for ordinary), and incorporation of external links to various local people and websites within the text. Part of the reason it is unsuitable is that it was done by professional writers. I have seen professional public relations people write good articles about their clients for Wikipedia. I have not seen many. It requires a different way of writing--a different mind set. They may be very skilled people, but they do as poorly at it as we would do in trying to write advertising copy. (when we need PR ourself, the way we do it is to hire people who know how, not rely on our own incompetent efforts.) The reason we discourage COI and especially paid writing is because so much of it is awful. The reason we do not actually ban it absolutely is that it can sometimes be done right. If the film becomes important, which is always possible, I hope someone will who is not too closely involved will write a proper article about it. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for the page to come down, that is why I tried to delete it. If that is not proper channels, then time will take care of it. In the defense of TRUTH, the Houston Public Library 4th floor seats 250 people. If you do not believe that, call them and ask: 832-393-1300 The room was called a theater to me by the employees, that is how they referred to it and I never thought to call it differently. And I did not pay anyone to write the page, as I said earlier, the "professional writer" is my neighbor who tutors kids at school in writing. I say professional because she is paid for her job, and I say writer because that is what she does. I was trying to understand what to do, to improve it. I was trying to show you that I was taking your criticism seriously. I find it odd that someone would spend so much time writing here, and yet say they have no time to write to improve the points of the article that they do not like. I don't think one person here has tried to improve the article. Regarding Notability for a Film, a film has five years to achieve that according to Wikipedia standards, and it only has to achieve ONE of those standards, not all of them. So, please, delete the page. Be happy. I am. Go spend your time helping someone make their articles better. The film was only released 13 days ago. I accept responsibility that I did not truly understand what Wikipedia "was" and "was not" and I learned the hard way. I will take that and grow from it. There is no evil plot to take over the world or Wikipedia. It was sheer human error, plain and simple. You can trust and believe me that I will NEVER submit another article to this place again. Someone else can do it. I intend to take this experience, and go quietly into simply editing other people's pages, and constructively help them with their grammar, links and punctuation. The only thing anyone here did was criticize, no one edited. You could have helped make it a better article, but I acknowledge you could not do anything about the Notability issue. O1huthhes (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And btw: The REASON we had the opening at the Houston Public Library is because it was the only place that would let people in for Free. We did not want anyone to be charged. I guess in these days and times, it might be difficult to believe that there are a few good people trying to do something good in this world. O1huthhes (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good bye !! O1huthhes (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, friend. As you have discovered, there are quite a few people that take the Wikipedia project very seriously (perhaps TOO seriously, it may be argued) and there very definitely are lines of demarcation as to what the project is and is not. Seriously, good luck with your filmmaking and no hard feelings. —Carrite, Oct. 8, 2010.

As for the additional editing, this really isn't the place for that. Speaking for myself, once in a while a challenge will move me to spend research time on the article in question, but basically this is a place where the inclusion-worthiness of a given article is discussed and decided; we're not here to fix anything, only to make the call on whether a subject clears or does not clear the established standards for inclusion. Sometimes the standards are a little screwy and hard to understand, but that's the way it is. Best, — Tim Carrite, Oct. 8, 2010.

Comment on article author just wanted to commend O1huthhes for his/her civil manner in the face of peoples somewhat brash comments about their personal writing. it can be hard to maintain composure under such coldly objective critique but you took it in stride. and thanks for your efforts in understanding wiki policy. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 06:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 9 October 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) 00:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Nina Ortiz

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

Unsourced (well, almost) article on a living but non-notable writer. I found one reference, in a journal from 1993, that proves that once upon a time one of his books was published: that's it. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find nothing about this author in English or Spanish except Wikipedia mirrors. No Spanish Wikipedia article, either. --Arxiloxos (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication that he or his books are notable. Actually, I'm not sure whether the books exist. No entry on WorldCat. The ref provided seems to refer to a different person. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:56, 9 October 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) 00:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kamahi on the bottom

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

Figure of speech that gets exactly zero non-Wikipedia hits. Not in any way notable. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This kamahi is on the bottom of notability. Qworty (talk) 05:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism, possibly made up at school one day. Does not even explain what "kamahi" is. JIP | Talk 07:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Madeup. Should be a csd category. Shadowjams (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:01, 8 October 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) 00:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ballpark Road

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

Road fails notability guidelines. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just tried to nominate this for deletion at the same time. This road is less than a mile long and is not particularly interesting other than there is a park on it. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This road is far from notable, there are millions of other roads like this that are not important at all. I can't even find it on Google Maps. Dough 48 72 03:30, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing indicating why this road is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No indication of notability whatsoever. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- unless there is a lot more to say about it, it is obviously NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I searched for reliable sources on this road and found none. I did see on the map that it is a one-block, dead end street. Sebwite (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable Admrboltz (talk) 17:51, 14 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian federal election campaign, 2010

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

Nothing here that doesn't belong on Australian federal election, 2010; seems to be a fork for expressing analysis and other WP:OR. Orange Mike | Talk 01:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Timeshift (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is an embarrassment. --Pete (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no chance this article can be recovered. Barrylb (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a matter of policy per WP:NOTNEWS. It's not uncommon for articles of this nature to stay up during a political campaign so that people can keep up with the latest developments, but the election is now history, and the historical record is covered in Australian federal election, 2010. Mandsford 15:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it my imagination, or did someone edit everyone else's comments? That's pretty well a "no-no" around here. Mandsford 01:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to at User talk:Timeshift9#Please.... Timeshift (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per Mandsford. This article duplicates the Australian federal election, 2010 article. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Out of date, OR, yuck. If someone wants to fix it, great, because it could be a legitimate content fork. But the present format of the article has to go. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and if required, be bold and merge the content to appropriate sections in Australian federal election, 2010. Forgive me for being blunt, but the majority of the arguments proffered by those !voting delete are almost identical to the examples given in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. In particular, I would point out that this is a wiki, and we don't delete articles simply because they're rubbish, we fix them. Furthermore, I completely disagree that the article as it stands is wholly unsalvageable: it's structure and weight need quite a bit of work, but most of it is reasonably well referenced, and the individual sections are certainly not so terrible that the encyclopedia would be better off upon their complete removal. -- Lear's Fool 11:14, 12 October 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) 00:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Akissforjersey (band)

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

Non-notable band, has two albums on an indie record that may or may not be considered "one of the more important" indie labels. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BAND. coverage is limited to event listings in gnews [19]. current article includes blog references. LibStar (talk) 12:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, though I would consider Tragic Hero to be covered under a "more important" indie label, as most artists are notable, it still doesn't meet criteria. Lack of reliable sources ruins the chances. YouTube, MySpace, Indie Vision, and Sputnikmusic are generally not considered reliable (except for perhaps Sputnik on certain occasions), and no other sources are included. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 20:58, 11 October 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) 00:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jabstar

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

Musical artist, doesn't appear to be especially notable, none of the sources are useful and the creator repeatedly removes the blp prod, its already been deleted as blp prod once Jac16888 ^Talk 00:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough verifiable and reliable sources for an encyclopedic article. The gentleman should continue to list all of this stuff on his own website until someone else notices. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:02, 8 October 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Campagna

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

Unremarkable sculptor. Lacks reliable third-party sources with significant coverage. See WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:16, 26 September 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:CREATIVE. References #1, #2, and #4 are dead links; reference #3 is one person's review on a blog; references #5 and #6 are the same (one in English, one in Italian); and reference #7 is promotional. Location (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable. Qworty (talk) 05:57, 8 October 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) 00:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MySims (TV series)

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

Recreation of prod-deleted material. Upcoming TV series with no indication of notability. Based on a notable video game, but per WP:NOTINHERITED not yet worthy of its own article. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only source is a press release more than 2 years old. Project could easily be dead, it's definitely not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, already mentioned and sourced in MySims#Film_and_TV_series. Maybe redirect. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:09, 8 October 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) 00:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban traditions

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

Unsourced OR. Anything meaningful can go in another Cuban society article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some meaningful information could be merged to other pages, but this one should be deleted. Unsourced material. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing here that isn't already covered in the articles Guayabera, Panama hat, Quincenera and Danzon. This looks like schoolwork, and if it was, I hope they got a good grade. The article will live on in "infolizer". Mandsford 15:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Culture of Cuba--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:54, 10 October 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. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ajoy Ghose

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

Fails WP:N. Main claim to notability is past president of Indian Institution of Engineers. Citation to support his position as "Director of the Central Mine Planning and Design Institute of India" has no mention of him. Article has been tagged for multiple issues, including inadequate sourcing and lack of notability, for three months. PROD tag removed with little improvement one month ago. Cresix (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Cresix (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF criteria 6 (president of Institution of Engineers) and 3 (fellow of Indian National Academy of Engineering). Phil Bridger (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - His status as fellow of Indian National Academy of Engineering is not confirmed by the source cited in the article. Cresix (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it is, and this source, which is also in the article, confirms that he received an award for which only fellows are eligible, and would qualify for WP:PROF criterion 2 as a prestigious national award. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not necessarily saying the information is inaccurate. And please correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears to me that the source used in the section stating "He is a Fellow of the Indian National Academy of Engineering" cites cmpdi.co.in, which says nothing about Ghose. That's why I placed an fv tag on it. This may simply be a matter of adding the right source to the right place. If so, the problems will then be solved. Thanks for clarifying. Cresix (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Phil Bridger (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not much on GS but presidency and fellowships give a keep. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF#C3 and possibly also C6. I added the NAE source found by Phil Bridger. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Phil Bridger. Enough here to pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 18:54, 14 October 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. Valid arguments were made which favor keeping, merging, and deleting. If this were a vote deletion has the most supporters, however the argument that we should in any way consider who created the article or coi editing as reasons to delete is an invalid argument and therefore weakened the case to delete. That is a problem, but not one that requires that we delete the article as a solution. If needed a discussion of an appropriate merge target can take place on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royaldutchshellplc.com

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

I've looked at but rejected other possibilities for this page including merge into Gripe site as a good example, or merge into Royal Dutch Shell; the problem is that I think the site is actually not sufficiently notable. An effort has been made to establish notability, including references to the site from a reliable news source. There were previous WP:COI issues from contributor User:Johnadonovan which should be mentioned for context. I believe that the subject is not sufficiently notable to warrant an article, lack of (global) impact of the referenced leaks published on the site being my primary reason. Heroic attempt to establish notability with little real meat on the importance of the leaks mentioned suggests overblown page. Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The site has been the subject of an article in The Wall Street Journal, has given rise to a hearing by the WIPO Panel, has been described in the Santa Barbara News-Press as "the world's most effective adversarial Web site", is linked by CNN.com as a source of information on Royal Dutch Shell, and is credited by The Financial Times as the source of information for an article about Shell's pension fund and by the WSJ for information in an article on Shell's reserves. That's a lot more (and more diverse) reliable sources than many articles can muster to support notability. The impact of the leaks is not, I suggest, of primary concern; of greater significance in establishing notability is that these respected newspapers are prepared to base serious business articles on information deriving from the site, and that Shell takes the site sufficiently seriously to think it worthwhile confirming the information and responding. Unless there is some dispute about the facts stated in the article or the reliability of the sources cited, the COI issue is something of a red herring and is not a reason to delete an article: that's a content issue, that can be addressed via editing; it doesn't affect the notability, or otherwise, of the site. Jimmy Pitt talk 21:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting that johnadonovan's COI problems are a reason to delete, I mentioned them because I thought they are relevant to an understanding of how this article came to be as it is. Note that the references are via shellnews a related site - that still smells a bit. Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it "smell"? It looks to me as though Shellnews is merely being used as a repository for scans of press cuttings, which might not otherwise be available. Unless you're suggesting that the articles have been fabricated, or are somehow "tainted", I can't see that it matters a jot whether they're sourced via Shellnews, archive.org, or the newspapers themselves. Jimmy Pitt talk 18:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Royal Dutch Shell. The article has issues, and I don't feel it can stay as it is, not convinced that it is the website or the owner that that is the notable one with regard to newspapers quoting them. I think it should be Merged to a section in Royal Dutch Shell. Codf1977 (talk) 09:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)See comments below Codf1977 (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the sources, you'll see that the newspapers don't quote the owner; they specifically mention that the leaked documents come from this web site. And what issues? Are they fixable by editing? Jimmy Pitt talk 12:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are fixable by editing, by reducing it to a stub, which might as well then be merged into the main Royal Dutch Shell. Codf1977 (talk) 12:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are the issues? And why can they only be fixed by reducing the article to a stub? If you think the article has issues, you're free to edit it. And other editors can then decide whether your edits are reasonable. But so far you haven't come up with a reason for not keeping the article, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is not a valid argument at AfD. Jimmy Pitt talk 15:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you look on the talk page that was my intention prior to the nom, I think that there is two much non-notable history about the Donovan's, I feel it is written in a promotional tone. Codf1977 (talk) 16:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that it's promotional in tone, but I do agree that we could make do with less on the Donovans: a brief summary to explain the origin of the site is needed, but the history of their disputes with the company is excessive and could indeed be pruned. But that's just an editing issue. Jimmy Pitt talk 18:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that i am making a WP:IDONTLIKEIT position - I did not make the nom, the position that I am taking is as a single issue website, run by two people who have an axe to grind, one of which has been a major editor of the page it should be edited down to little more than a stub and then merged with Royal Dutch Shell (with the std. redirect) then if anyone feels it is proper to expand on it in the future that is fine.Codf1977 (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't the exclusive preserve of the nom, but now that you've explained your concerns I withdraw that suggestion. Where I still disagree is over the need to reduce the page to a stub. Are the facts stated correct? On the basis of the refs, they appear to be. Who inserted those facts is then irrelevant. And really, what difference does it make if the article is subsequently expanded by another editor, one with no axe to grind? That editor would still have access to the same sources, and would be quite entitled to build the article around them. I'm not saying that the article doesn't need attention: on that we agree. I'm just saying that I don't think it needs to be root-pruned to improve it. Jimmy Pitt talk 18:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me present a little more detail of the problem - the primary example of its notability presented is this article in the financial times [20] - the question is: is the news notable? is the site notable? It's simple to say "mentioned in FT and Wall Street Journal - must be notable" - but is this necessarily true?

I think the page needs looking at more closely than simply examining whether or not references to the site exist in reliable sources. Question - the site can be used as a news source, does that mean an article is needed? I apologise for ignoring obvious arguments for 'keep', but given the history I'd like to see this page given more than a cursory look at in terms of it's validity as an article, Thanks.Sf5xeplus (talk)

Nowhere did I say that the site is just "mentioned", therefore "must be notable". What I said, and I repeat, as it would seem you have not read the sources, is that they attribute it as the source of their information: that goes well beyond a mere "mention". And I didn't just look at whether the sources exist -- I read them, every last word (even the turgid WIPO report), so your suggestion that my examination was "cursory" is not just wrong, it's insulting. I disagree about the primary source for notability: the Santa Barbara article is at least as important, for its description of the site as "the world's most effective adversarial Web site": that's a pretty solid claim to notability from a RS. Jimmy Pitt talk 18:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok keep your hat on - I wasn't responding to you so I wasn't suggesting anything about your analysis. I've read the sources - they clearly state (or link to) "royaldutchshellplc.com" as the source for 3 news story. What I'm saying is "so what". That's the lot isn't it? did the stories have any impact. It's clear that the site became interesting to be mentioned as an example of a gripe site (as per Santa Barbara News) but the reliable sources presented seems like an exercise in 'technical proof of notability' rather than something that is 'naturally notable' (ie proof of notability easy to find). I'm not sure either way. But I don't buy the argument that: because reliable references exist mentioning the site, thus it is worthy of an encyclopedia article. It's a more subtle problem than that.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ok I've worked out a simple way to put my issues with the page - if I could see the articles or article sections covering the news resulting from the leaks from this web site then I wouldn't have so much of an issue with it - maybe that is an additional topic for Royal Dutch Shell - if that info were in "Royal Dutch Shell" then the site would probably be used as a reference. If that were done would there still be any need for this page?

flash of inspiration It suddenly occurred to me that perhaps we should have an article on the two Donovans, with their sites as subsections. Quite a bit of the coverage seems to find their story interesting. I'm not suggesting a bio, but a page covering their relationship with shell, the impact of their site etc. Does that make sense?Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Actually I was going to suggest the same thing. It seems that this story by Reuters, this one by The Times, and this one by Guardian establish the notability of Donovans and Shell relations. So my suggestion is to rename and refine this article. Also other similar websites run by Donovan should be mentioned. At the same time, references to the Donovan's sites should be replaced by original news/sites. Beagel (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't actually add a second support, but I think this is the best route, the issue remains of a suitable name for the page - which I'm stumped with. Royal Dutch Shell and the Donovan family is not suitable. Can I assume that we are going forward with this (can't imagine any objections).. naming suggestions are needed though.Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and refine I feel that the website is notable, despite its owner's malintent here on Wikipedia. However, fallout from the User:Johnadonovan-COI exposé is still evident in the article (e.g., the source Shellnews.net is owned by the Donovans). I am confident that another talented editor could refine the article to make sure it adheres more precisely to Wikipedia policy (e.g., NPOV). Regards —Eustress ^talk 05:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I reversed my "keep" close on this because I was not aware it had been recently relisted when I closed it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox, which includes using it as a vehicle to further the agenda of a pair of activists with an axe to grind. The article was created in bad faith and isn't notable enough to merit such an article. Horologium (talk) 19:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge to an article/section on Shell controversies or move to an article about the website owners. On this occasion, Shell seems to have done the job for them to make the site notable. Failing that, the mentions in the UK broadsheets seems enough. Yes, we will need to watch this article very carefully to check it doesn't become a WP:COATrack, but that alone isn't a reason to delete. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, forget that, merge relevant information and delete the rest. Having checked the motives behind creating this article and the obvious wish for the article creator to use this as a soapbox, nor prepared to give the benefit of the doubt any more. We have better things to do than police soapbox articles, let's put the relevant information where more people are going to be keeping an eye on it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on reflection Horologium's point about the article being created in bad faith and made me change my mind, by keeping it we reward that bad faith. Codf1977 (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article written by John Donovan may be of interest. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC) (or this webcitation.org archive copy Codf1977 (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete and merge, mention the leaks from the website on Royal Dutch Shell, as well as mentioning the website by name, also possibly mention the website itself on that page (in notes section?), delete the current page - but transfer useful content. Reason for delete - still have issues with the history of the page and contributors unbalancing the coverage and perception of notability. If someone wants to create a new page at a later date I would look at that without prejudice. (ie still think coverage is inflated due to single purposed efforts of site creators) - Also hold a similar view to Horologium above.Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant, neutral material and delete the article from mainspace. Some aspects of the Donovans' dispute with Shell are notable and relevant in the main Royal Dutch Shell article, but I agree with Horologium that an article on the website, which is marginally notable at best, is necessarily a soapbox for the Donovans' views on the matter and their subsequent activities. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The coverage of this web site in major publications like the Wall Street Journal and Fortune shows notability. Wikipedia ought to be able to write about critics of major corporations, however quirky they may be, if they are referenced by the mainstream. User:Johnadonovan has not edited the article since 2009 so it is hard to argue that the promoter of this website is running away with the content of our article. I am familiar with the COI issues since I was one of the editors at WP:COIN who considered these matters when they first appeared in early 2008. The past noticeboard discussions about Johnadonovan can be found through this search. EdJohnston (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, Rename to Royaldutchshellplc.com (gripe website). However, I think it might be more to the point to merge it by adding a short paragraph to Royal Dutch Shell, with an external link to the site. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable blog it, limited sourcing almost resricted to incidental mentions. I am also leary because of all these citations that link back to his website (in violation of WP:LINKVIO)and not the actual articles elsewhere... not mention the use of SPS for the claims about a third party. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage in reliable sources to have its own article. Blog sites criticizing large corporations are like teeth, we all have a mouthful. This article should have borne in mind that Wikipedia is not a platform for free speech, it is an encyclopedia.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good coverage in reliable sources causes it to easily pass the WP:N requirement. Basket of Puppies 17:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article, ensure relevant, neutral material appears in the main Royal Dutch Shell article. Some aspects of the Donovans' dispute with Shell are relevant there. I agree with Gavia immer and Horologium that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I would urge blocking of recreation of this title. --Bejnar (talk) 18:06, 16 October 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. No consensus to delete. Weak consensus to merge/redirect but no consensus for a target Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second sight

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

The only source for the article is another encyclopedia. Also, the article presumes that some people have supernatural visions of future events-- kind of an odd position for an encyclopedia to take. PStrait (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article could certainly use more sources (and appropriate referencing/linking to the sources it does mention in the text). However, the presumption of "supernatural" phenomenon is a very widespread and commonly accepted belief among many people, cultures, and time periods. Reporting or describing such beliefs is certainly within the scope of an encyclopedia, and in fact is part of the intrinsic purpose of an encyclopedia. This is no different than an encyclopedia containing articles on various religions or even political platforms. Autumnalmonk (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the presumption that "supernatural" phenomena actually exist is widespread doesn't mean that an encylopedia ought to take such a stance. It is possible, I think, to describe a belief without adhering to that belief. Even if there ought to be a second sight article (and if there ought to be one, wouldn't more sources be required to prove that it is noteworthy?), I feel like this shouldn't be it.PStrait (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, maybe merge a couple of the more interesting (less rhetorical) bits. I don't mind using the 1911 Britannica as a source, per se. However, I think there's just too much overlap with clairvoyance / remote viewing / Extrasensory perception (take your pick); all three of those articles are better written and use a wider range of sources, including more recent ones. bobrayner (talk) 11:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to precognition. -- BenTels (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "Second sight" is a commonly used term with a specific cultural association and is significant in its own right, having a long history of belief and widespread acceptance. While related to clairvoyance / remote viewing / Extrasensory perception, it is distinct in itself and deserves it's own page (though this could certainly be improved in many ways). Autumnalmonk (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Insufficient grounds for deletion. Please see our deletion and editing policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge to precognition. He iro 03:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either keep or redirect to extra-sensory perception. If more sources can be found, then the article should be kept. If not, then redirect. --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Precognition. We do not need multiple articles about the same thing under different names. Edison (talk) 21:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Certainly a notable subject with a lot of reliable sources to add information from. Vodello (talk) 07:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into and Redirect to "Precognition". Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Precognition. The terms seem to be synonymous. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my opinion to Redirect to Extra-sensory perception. I originally said (based on the misinformation given in the article) that the term was synonymous with precognition, that is, perception of future events - but it isn't. A bit of Google searching reveals that "second sight" refers to any kind of ESP visualization, whether it is of the future (precognition), remote events (remote viewing), etc. It's defined as "the alleged ability to foresee the future, see actions taking place elsewhere, etc.; clairvoyance". (A good example of why a Wikipedia article should not be based on a single source.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 14 October 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) 09:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hakim Jan (Argandab druglord)

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

Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. The only coverage is a few paragraphs in a single article from the Sydney Morning Herald - far below our notability requirements. Has an element of WP:NOT#NEWS. Moreover, this is a negative BLP entry, where the standards for sourcing are required to be particularly stringent. Nsk92 (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 09:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have moved the article to Abdul Hakim Jan (Argandab warlord), for the article name could be seen as an attack on the subject. I agree with the nominator in his assessment of the article, this does not meet our notability standards. Yoenit (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't use the term "warlord" -- even when a newspaper or other WP:RS used it. I use "militia leader" instead. Not liking the name of an article is not one of the recommended criteria for deletion. Further, I suggest, in a nation where the national army is very weak, with only a few tens of thousands of reliably trained troops, any local leader who can call on a private army of 1,000 individuals is notable. Geo Swan (talk)
  - call him militia leader, local leader or whatever, I don't care. Reason I moved it from is because your only source just "heard rumors" and never calls him a in the original text. With regards to notability: the size of his army is irrelevant, notability is determined by "substantial coverage in independent reliable sources". I think that snippet of text from a single article is insufficient for this purpose, but you are free to disagree. Yoenit (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This nomination is misleading, when it asserts "the only coverage is a few paragraphs in a single article..." In fact the article devotes a dozen paragraphs, over 500 words, to Abdul Hakim Jan. Yes, we should careful when we write about individuals. We should go no farther than our references. We should use neutral, non-sensational wording. I do not believe BLP or any other policy requires us to only carry hagiographies. I believe I did manage to write about AHJ in appropriately neutral language, attributing all assertions to the reputable newspaper I was paraphrasing. Geo Swan (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AHJ appears to have a namesake, another leader, with an identical name, from his county. In this region different individuals with the same name is quite common. Is it possible that Abdul Hakim Jan (Argandab tribal leader) was the same individual as Abdul Hakim Jan (Argandab druglord)? But no matter how likely or unlikely it might seem to me, this kind of speculation is not allowed. I have encountered multiple pairs of individuals, with similar or identical names, where I didn't think there was sufficient justification to write that they were the same individual, or that they were different individuals. In those cases I make sure the articles on both individuals mention the other guy, and only go as far as the references go. In the instance of the two AHJs I started both articles the same day. Then no-one who encounters limited information on these guys is going to assume they are the same guy. Geo Swan (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If these are two different individuals (which we basically have to assume in the absence of conclusive evidence to the contrary), then the subject of this AfD manifestly fails WP:N since there is only a single source providing coverage of him - hence the article must be deleted. If the are the same individual as confirmed by reliable sources, then this article is a WP:Content fork of Abdul Hakim Jan (Argandab tribal leader) and hence it must be deleted as well. Either way, keeping this article violates our inclusion standards. Nsk92 (talk) 20:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A reference I just came across, from 2006, says:

In Lashkar Gah, Abdul Hakim Jan, a legendary mujahadin fighter, and his entourage of 30 men, armed with colourfully painted AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenades, sauntered into the Ariana Super Café for a kebab lunch. Hakim Jan was sacked as police chief of Maiwand because of his alleged links with the drugs trade. British officials said he was responsible for an assassination attempt on his successor in Maiwand before being placated with a government job in Kandahar.

Does this suggest there is just one individual named AHJ? The guy assassinated 11 months after the SMH article did hold a position in Kandahar -- Chief of a Police auxiliary. Is it sufficient to suggest the two AHJ articles should be merged? I dunno. Geo Swan (talk) 21:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Six of the eight references point to another guy of the same name, and the two that refer to this guy are not enough to move this out of the realm of WP:NOTNEWS into WP:N. Location (talk) 01:06, 8 October 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) 00:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New World Island Academy

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

Seems clear spam The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep It's a high school and simple google search verifies its existence, so standard practice says we should keep it. That being said, I am not sure why this is the standard practice, so I will refrain from voting for now. If somebody could explain why high schools are notable that would be greatly appreciated. Yoenit (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since when do we have the phone number adress and Last time the table was updated, its spam The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have one hit in Google News, about it closing for a snow day. None in books and Web is just WP:SPS.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. There is a significant number of trivial mentions from sport & math related events as well as some minor stuff from government websites like [21] [22] [23]. I don't think it is significant enough for the wp:GNG, but it's there is some stuff out there. Yoenit (talk) 21:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per WP:Notability (high schools) all high schools are presumed to be notable, even small ones. The solution to a weak article on a high school is to improve it rather than delete it. Cullen328 (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Public high school, existence verified. No reason to deviate from the usual outcome for high schools.--Arxiloxos (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The consensus that all HSs hould be considered notable for Wikipedia purposes has been well established. (note that this is not quite the same as saying that all HS are notable--it's saying that in this case such a very high proportion are notable that it is best for Wikipedia not to argue about each of them.) This gets challenged every few months, either by someone who does not yet know the practice or someone who wants to reverse it. Rather than reverse it, what we need to do is use similar article inclusion standards for as many classes of things as possible, rather than the need for 1000 AfDs a week, with the consequent erratic decisions. We should have grown up past that point by now. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 9 October 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 to delete this material. The challenge was that the article subject was not notable; the debate has found significant coverage in one reliable source, and has failed to reach consensus. One reliable source is one too few, so I would have no objection to an early renomination to AfD.—S Marshall T/C 11:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Anonymus (band)

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

I just don't think this band is notable. The article doesn't assert much. See related AfD discussion at Stress (album) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Other then WP:ITEXISTS I can't see anything that denotes notability. I don't see where it passes WP:BAND with any WP:RS to back it up. - Pmedema (talk) 05:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 07:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Band appears to satisfy criterion 1 of WP:BAND to some extent, although there is some difficulty in assessing the sources, being as they are in French. See for example here Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the intro to that article Catfish Jim pointed to, in English, is: "The celebrated group, Anonymus, one of the pillars of heavy metal in Quebec, celebrate their 20th anniversary this year, and a successful tour of the province. The members, accompanied for the occasion by their original singer, Marco Calliari, will be stopping at the Bar la Bavaroise in Nicolet on September 21." D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could also go HERE for the english translation. I personally don't think that it satisfies criterion 1 of WP:BAND to the point of inclusion. Pmedema (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I see it has been the subject of secondary source coverage. -- Cirt (talk) 00:38, 15 October 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) 00:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seat allocation error and degree of negation

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

Longterm WP:GNG issues, unable to find sources except two or three articles by FP Muga II. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC) The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The general concept could be explained in a larger article on the topic, but this expression does not seem to be notable.Steve Dufour (talk) 04:58, 8 October 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) 00:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunity success rate

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

Seems to be non notable Neologism The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The meaning of the expression is obvious, but there is no reason to think it is notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable neologism. When I was in high school a long time ago I had a Sociology teacher that used to say, tongue in cheek, that "Sociology is the intense study of the extremely obvious." Here we have the "Opportunity success rate" — divide your number of successes by your total number of opportunities and you will magically generate your OPPORTUNITY SUCCESS RATE. Did you follow that? Shall I explain this again? Completely unencyclopedia-worthy topic, an attempt to mathematize and dress up with pseudo-scholarly phraseology a simple percentage that a fifth grader could calculate. —Carrite, Oct. 8, 2010.

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ophidian Alliance

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

Seems to WP:FANCRUFT Failing WP:GNG The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, I am not familiar with the Rackham games, but it looks like this article isn't really needed. It has only one incoming link from an article, and it hasn't been substantially edited since its creation over three years ago. JIP | Talk 07:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third-party sources exist that can WP:verify notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:14, 8 October 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) 00:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soft salad

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

This article is about a non-notable snack product. Earlier PROD was contested by the author, saying that there is "a precedent of a large collection of snack food articles on Wikipedia", which is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, and this is in no way comparable to well-known Japanese snack brands such as Pocky or Umaibō, which clearly deserve self-standing articles. --DAJF (talk) 01:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, why Pocky and Umaibō are more deserving or well known than Soft salad is not immediately obvious to me. I don't think I've tried Umaibō before (I've seen it before), but I've had soft salad and pocky in the past, anecdotally speaking. I haven't reviewed many snack food AFDs, truthfully. --Bxj (talk) 11:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is simply no evidence provided that this product is notable, even in Japan. Figureofnine (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete First article I've ever seen where the source was "Manufacturer's customer support phone conversation". Might be worth a mention in senbei. Mandsford 15:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real coverage [24]. LibStar (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Keyboard layout#Non-QWERTY keyboards for Latin scripts. PhilKnight (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Standard Keyboard

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

Seems to be A non-noatable product The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree, not notable. -- BenTels (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep gets some coverage [25] including a New York Times article. LibStar (talk) 06:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A review in the NYT is sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Apart from the NYT article mentioned by LibStar, all I can find are what appear to be press releases or promotional blurbs by keyboard retailers. Unless there are other RSs that I've missed, the subject fails WP:GNG. It would, however, merit merging into Keyboard layout#Non-QWERTY keyboards for Latin scripts, which already has sections on a number of similar developments. Jimmy Pitt talk 16:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Jimmy Pitt. If other sources are found a standaline article can be restored. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above. The article consists of a single sentence, and is unlikely to become much longer. Sandstein 10:56, 16 October 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) 00:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Percy Jackson

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

Seems to be a non-notable person the books in the bibliogrpahy seem to mostly be vanity press so obscure I can't find a website for it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google search gives 25k+ results. Also, she was awarded the highest civilian award in Canada. Geeteshgadkari (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE this mind-numbingly insignificant article. It is interminable and says nothing of note. She was born, she grew up, she moved around, she became a doctor, she got married, blah blah blah blah blah, she lived and worked a long time--and in all of her years she never did one notable thing--at least not by WP standards. Yaaaawwwwnn. It reads like a piece of genealogy, of interest only to her descendants. Well, we're not related to her, so we can scrub it off the face of the Earth without any guilt whatsoever. Qworty (talk) 06:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there appear to be plenty of sources available to show notability. In any case, is it possible to win the Order of Canada without having done anything notable? This seems unlikely. On another note, the above comment by Qworty strikes me as uncivil, and not an appropriate way in which to discuss an AfD. --Korruski^Talk 09:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Qworty should read the biography on the Alberta Order of Excellence website, which is listed as a reference. This woman physician is notable, and she won major awards in Canada as a result. That being said, the current version of the article certainly needs a re-write. Any editor with good knowledge of Canada could improve the article with just a bit of effort. There are also outstanding sources listed in the bibliography that could become references. Cullen328 (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Smacks of a memorial and needs to be sourced. No opinion as to notability, although content is sufficient that I would be leery of a rash deletion. —Carrite, Oct. 8, 2010.
Keep. Let's see. She's got lots of prestigious awards, a book of her letters, a film about her, scads of references. What more do you need? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep She has a school named after her.[26] She won several national awards. She was notable enough to have her letters published. It's true the article is too chatty in style and could use a pruning, but that is no reason to delete; she clearly passes WP:GNG. --MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 9 October 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom Christianity

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

Seems to be a Non-notable Religous movement The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for a lack of coverage in mainstream media. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
VEry Weak Keep -- This seems to be a syncretic mixture of Christianity and Hinduism. Its founder Bede Griffiths has his own article and is clearly notable. However (to judge by the articles) his views appear to be promoted by a single ashram in India, which he founded, but is a redlink. Since this is an Indian movement, it should not be too surprising that the subject does not have Internet accessible sources. I would perfer to see related articles on the ashram and otehr related matters. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep based on what I could see at Google scholar and Google books. This may need to be incubated. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you see? I see Nothing but book all the result show instances of where it gets hits but but only where the two words just happen to be next to each other. I see nothing on the Religious movement described in the article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:08, 11 October 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) 00:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

L'Académie du Massacre

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

Non-notable album from a probably not-notable band. See related AfD discussion at Stress (album) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 07:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable album. Article is just a track listing. Mattg82 (talk) 17:30, 8 October 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) 00:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ni vu, ni connu

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

Non-notable album from a probably not-notable band. See related AfD discussion at Stress (album) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 07:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable album. Article is just a track listing. Mattg82 (talk) 17:25, 8 October 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) 00:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instinct (Anonymus album)

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

Non-notable album from a probably not-notable band. See related AfD discussion at Stress (album) D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 07:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non notable album. Article is just a track listing. Mattg82 (talk) 17:24, 8 October 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.