Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 25

< 24 September	26 September >

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 Userfy. Moved to User:KrebMarkt/Bitter Virgin (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter Virgin

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

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK and WP:N; no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Prod removed by User:Dream Focus with note of "I believe it is notable. Discuss in an AFD if you wish" -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless sourced. WP:BURDEN. If it notable, those who wish for this article to be kept will add the sources necessary. Miami33139 (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love the series and predict that it will received critical acclaimed for it's portrayal of incest, rape, pregnancy, and the associated trauma if it were licensed in English. However, that hasn't happened yet. Until sources are presented discussing the work, I would would have to say that it fails the inclusion guidelines for stand-alone articles. —Farix (t | c) 02:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy on me Just got licensed in France by Ki-oon. I will bring it back when i got enough French RS coverage to pass WP:BK #1. Probably will give it a shot to DYK to thwart some noses. Sorry, i'm in full disillusion mode today. --KrebMarkt 14:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:KrebMarkt -- I can't find anything reliable to support the notability of this series, but given the subject it's extremely likely to get multiply reviewed in France ... once the French editions come out. No prejudice against recreation once this occurs (assuming it does). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to User:KrebMarkt. No prejudice against recreation if sources can be found. Edward321 (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Prior to the apparent undiscussed blanking of the page and subsequent nomination for speedy deletion and double nomination for AfD the content here was a redirect. As the blanker was not the original author, and there was no discussion anywhere that I can find, I am restoring the redirect and sending this to RFD on the nominator's behalf. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rsd

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

nonsense Afaprof01 (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 21:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mastiksoul

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

Although an article of "Mastiksoul" also appears on the French Wikipedia (fr:Mastiksoul), I wasn't able to find any references that show he meets the notability criteria for musicians. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources look to be mostly in Portuguese. A Google News search for him turns up an awful lot of hits and they don't appear to be press releases although many be event announcements. This article seems to indicate he's more than the run of the mill DJ. It may need somebody with some proficiency in Portuguese to dig up sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2009 (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) 00:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The source above definitely makes this one comply with WP:RS. Hús ö nd 20:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DDtrac

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

Borderline case of non-notable software from non-notable developer. Orange Mike | Talk 22:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Merge with Developing Minds Software - Between the company and the software product there does appear to be sufficient coverage to establish notability although each individually is probably borderline. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 14:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see the merged article meeting notability either. Note that the Eparent article referenced in the article is written by the founder of Developing Minds and creator of the DDTrac software. -- Whpq (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator, the merge target isn't notable either so placing this there isn't going to fix the problem. On the other hand, if there is non-trivial coverage on this particular subject I would be in favor of retaining it... but I cannot find any. JBsupreme (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge per UrbanRenewal. It seems adopted in the autism community, with some coverage by autism websites [1] , [2] , [3] ; plus it has been used in at least one academic research [4]. I would merge Developing Minds Software within this article. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 11:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the sources found by Cyclopia, I found this article from American City Business Journals. Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmacoenvironmentology

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

"Pharmacoenvironmentology", from what I can see, is not a recognised branch of pharmacology and not notable. According to my searches on Google [5], this term has been created by the author of this page User:Szrahman, which is also a conflict of interest WP:COI. Moreover, if you look closely at the websites obtained through Goggle search, all the websites have the name Syed Ziaur Rahman or SZ Rahman written in it and there is NO offical websites that can certify the existance of this term. In addition, there are no other sources/references (except the ones containing his name) that talks about Pharmacoenvironmentology. I also saw a book about this subject, but this book has been written by S.Z. Rahman... The references in this article are questionable and does not seem to be closely related to the subject; it seems more like a promotion. I have nothing against the S.Z. Rahman and I respect him, but there is just no 3rd party reliable sources to support. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 22:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears to be mostly promotional material and lacks sources.--Stormbay (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Pharmacovigilance, including material on ecopharmacology and PharmEcovigilance, which are alternative names. The concept of considering the environmental effects of pharmaceutical drugs is worth covering. Fences&Windows 14:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note ~~the rather misnamed~~ Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment, which discusses this issue. Fences&Windows 14:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge I suppose its enough of an alternate term to be appropriate for a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per Fences&Windows. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Can be restored if somebody wants to write an article about the Associação de Professores de Matemática. Sandstein 05:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ProfMat

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

I can't find signifciant coverage for this term. Joe Chill (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only thing close to a source provided is the external link and that is just an announcement on the website of a sponsering organization. I couldn't find any source that would establish notability using Google either. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd suggest merge to the organization, but they don't have an article. Let's worry about getting the group an article before writing articles about their local terminology which has (per Rusty Cashman) no notability on its own. -Miskaton (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no notability here as the lack of sources indicates.--Stormbay (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and edit Agreed about where this should go, but the easiest thing is to use the existing material DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hex Bombs

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

Junk band article, fails WP:BAND. Only thing that they boast is a handful of albums and a battle of the bands competition (not notable in itself, see WP:GARAGE). Ipatrol (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete This is not a "[j]unk band article" because it does contain some coverage in reliable sources. These three articles from Mlive.com, the local paper, provide significant coverage about this band, but this is only local coverage. If the band received coverage from a different newspaper, even if it were local, I would vote keep. However, the lack of coverage in other publications indicates that this band is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Cunard (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep At least 2 other print magazines have covered this band, this one is linked in the article and this review which is reprinted at the band's website. I am the article creator by the way. Clownpounder (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2009 (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) 00:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the links Clownpounder points to are 1,blog post (not a wp:rs) and 2,a reproduction of an extremely short reviews from a source of questionable reliability ("News Satire You Can Trust"). Lacks enough coverage in independent reliable sources. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overstat

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

NN software, previous version of article nommed for speedy by me as blatant advertising. Sole sourcing is to some blog, total of three Google hits, one to the blog and two to the company website. →ROUX ₪ 21:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. I have searched Google Books and Google News Archive (using the search term "Overstat" software) and have not been able to find anything substantial. This software fails WP:N. Cunard (talk) 08:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Page contains no assertion of notability, a search for RS has failed also. Triplestop x3 17:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ScreenJot

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

Ambiguous spam, could be spam, but doesn't meet G11. Only ghits are download sites. Ipatrol (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. I doubt that this is spam because it is free software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Advertisement Dr. Szląchski (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:Factual Product DescriptionJohnrobinsn (talk) 23:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Searches on Google Books and Google News Archive return no results. This software fails WP:N.
The company that produces this free software, LiquidThought, also fails the notability guidelines so a merge cannot be done.
I agree with Joe Chill that this article is not spam. It is written neutrally and does not contain weasel words. The only problem here is notability, not promotion. Cunard (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was (no consensus). This debate was previously closed by an administrator. Cleaning up. -- AllyUnion (talk) 14:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is concluded without a consensus to delete. Please do not edit it further. Additional comments go to the article talk page. --Zero 12:44, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

University of Sydney Media Society

Very little information, doesn't appear to be notable. Henry plantagenet 11:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Concur. Redirect to university main page. Radiant! 12:07, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Small but perfectly fine article. --Zero 12:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Seems OK to me. HowardB 17:01, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to University of Sydney, unless there is some notable information that can be added. As it is now, it is more like self-promotion. Zzyzx11 20:34, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, not notable, advertisement. Megan1967 22:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Notable. --Centauri 01:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Could you please explain why you think it is notable? Henry plantagenet 06:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why are so anxious to delete it? What harm is it doing? Wikipedia is not paper! --Zero 12:02, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because, Henry plantagenet, it is notable. I've never attended Sydney University but I've certainly heard of its media society.--Centauri 23:04, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

However, it scores a whopping seventeen google hits. Could you please substantiate its notability beyond the fact that you've heard of it? Radiant! 10:14, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

The fact I've heard of it is the only "substantiation" necessary to establish notability.--Centauri 12:58, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

keep Yuckfoo 04:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirect to University of Sydney. Sorry, it's clearly below my notability bar: worthy of mention in Wikipedia, unworthy of an individual article. vlad_mv 05:01, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep -- Longhair 02:58, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, of no importance --nixie 09:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
merge and redirect At best, this is a stub. Unless someone adds real content to this soon, it should be merged into the university article and split out later if it grows enough. The website linked does not have much content either. Clicking on About gives me Page not found. --ssd 15:19, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is not a part of Sydney University and should not be directed there. --Zero 12:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kung-Fu Killers: Top 10 weapons of kung-fu

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

I can't find significant coverage for this documentary. Joe Chill (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2009 (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) 00:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
idea with things like this (that exist but probably aren't notable enough for inclusion) could we do something like this; maybe delete, and put in an external redirect to somewhere like IMDB? --Arkelweis (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, an article with absolutely no sources about a documentary that might have been shown on television sometime and might or might not be on DVD somewhere, we just don't know when, or where, or what it was about. At least there were no "spoilers". At most, this article lets me know that there was something that had this title. The lack of any information should be a clue as to the show's lack of notability. Mandsford (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Homer Elledge

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

Fails WP:BLP1E. Being executed does not show automatic notability. Joe Chill (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is well sourced and while routine news coverage alone may not establish notability at least some of the sources cited, for example [6], go beyond routine news coverage into serious social commentary. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have edited the article so that it is more clear what was noteworthy about this case. The material was in the already cited sources but was simply not brought out in the article itself. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found and added a couple of new sources for the article. One is just another local news article so it doesn't help with notability but it has a nice summary of events that will help with expanding the article (which I will get to in the next few days if nobody beats me to it). The other is a true crimes book by Ann Rule that devotes an entire chapter (more than 35 pages) to Elledge and provides quite a bit of detail on his life. I suspect that the existence of the book (which constitutes a reliable secondary source that is not a news report) plus the extensive news coverage should conclusively resolve the notability debate. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there seems to be enough coverage. The notability isnt primarily the murder, but the trial DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG Crafty (talk) 06:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Killed two women: one was apparently not considered murder (just hitting in the head with a hammer until she was dead (?!)). Extensive coverage in a book ("Last Dance, Last Chance: And Other True Cases (Ann Rule's Crime Files, Vol. 8)" Coverage in another book "Murdering myths: the story behind the death penalty" by Judith Webb Kay. Typical newspaper coverage of a murder trial and the eventual execution does not argue much for keeping. What was unusual was his efforts to speed the execution along and prevent any appeals. Seems like "suicide by murdering someone and not appealing." Edison (talk) 21:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. the issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page or someone can be BOLD and just do it. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester University Music Society

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

I can't find any reviews, albums or anything else to establish notability for this student club. I tried searching by "Manchester University" "Music Society" and University of Manchester Music Society and found nothing. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 20:59, 25 September 2009 (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) 00:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with either University_of_Manchester#Clubs_and_societies or University_of_Manchester_Students'_Union#Societies. Will need severe cropping, but the refs available should be sufficient to support a few lines about this society. --Derek Andrews (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are no refs. It has only 38 Google hits as Manchester University Music Society and 15 Google hits by University of Manchester Music Society. Abductive (reasoning) 18:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Some people are far to ready to decide that university student societies are NN, despite some having a long history, in this case "only" 30 years. It should certainly not be deleted out of hand. The merge suggestion is a viable possibility, but may result in the loss of useful information. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having the Wikipedia article deleted will not result in the deletion of the Society, and people can always look up any "useful" information on the university's website. Abductive (reasoning) 22:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sourcing used to establish notability has been challenged, and editors favouring retention of the article were not convincing in their defence. Skomorokh, barbarian 06:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Prayer Network

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

Non notable organisation, article appears to have been created as a cover to recreate the contents of Ted Pike, deleted in AfD [[7]] Pontificalibus (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it's reliably sourced. The "old" Ted Pike article which you mentioned was deleted in 2007, so it doesn't make sense to invoke that discussion anyway. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, remember Wikipedia: Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. This page is less than a day old and I am currently in the process of finding other reliably sourced information to add to it. I don't think the NPN can be described as non-notable, either. It's at least as notable as Michael Collins Piper, who is considered notable enough to have his own article (and, incidentally, has ties to the NPN).

Finally, just because an article (or a closely related article such as Ted Pike has been previously deleted as non-notable doesn't mean it isn't notable. The previous deletion very well could have been made in error; another possibility is that the original incarnation of the article simply didn't provide enough explanation why the subject was notable.

I'd also like to comment on the user who posted on [[8]] that "Wikipedia is not Klanwatch". That may be true, but you could also say that Wikipedia is not FishBase; despite this we still have one-sentence articles on obscure topics like Chromis limbaughi, so I'd say this article is on pretty safe ground, in terms of notability. I'm currently in the process of finding more information on Harmony Grant and the organization in general; I admit that this article right now is mostly about Ted Pike but I plan to expand it in the near future. It's not just "a cover to recreate the contents of Ted Pike, deleted in AfD", as you said. Remember to assume good faith, please. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – ~~Although the article is named for the organization, less than 25% of the text is about the it. Additionally,~~ I do not see significant coverage in secondary sources - emphasis on multiple sources. ttonyb (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I rewrote the article to remove the emphasis on Pike. ttonyb (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First, it's almost a G10 as it stands, because it does nothing but present non-RS POVs critical of NPN. Second, there appear from the Google News hits to be at least three separate organizations which use this name, making such a negative article problematic. While it may meet the GNG, it doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG in any meaningful way, which leaves us two options: either expand it to be NPOV and disambiguate it, or get rid of it. I fundamentally believe the latter is the better course of action--per the afd comment on Ted Pike, we're not Klanwatch. I wouldn't be opposed to merging this into an appropriate list, if someone comes up with one. Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has the Anti-Defamation League been a "non-RS"? It's a widely respected organization that has been around for nearly a century and specializes in the study of anti-Semitism-related topics; as such, it's one of the best sources possible for an article like this. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jclemens, sources are way too thin, borderline G10. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite There are sources to write a neutral article The POV is made manifest by the failure to even give a link to the organizations site. The nature of the group will be clear enough if done right--in fact, nothing could possibly make it clearer than their own website. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sources? You'd argue to keep an article on the strands of dog fur gumming up my keyboard. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

come on, TPH, start looking at what I do . I say delete here about 30% of the time, not 1% of the time like some other editors you may have in mind. And that's only because I don't bother with the clearly obviously deletes, which make up half the workload here. My general view is that of the articles that come here, most should be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From the Google News search if you narrow it by adding Oregon to the search, you get three items: one appears like a good source (though its behind a pay wall), one is a trivial mention of this group, and the third is an editorial, so no notability through that alone. A search through the archives of The Oregonian, the regional big paper in the area with archives back to mid-1987, gives only two articles, with one being trivial and the other slightly more than trivial. The Willamette Week and the Portland Tribune have zero articles. In fact its a bit odd that the really left-leaning Willamette Week has nothing, but in some ways that is telling when considering the notability of the group. The WW covers groups like this in general, so the fact that they haven't bothered to cover this group seals the deal. As to the existing sources in the article, it is trivial coverage in the SPL. The ADL is trickier, but I just can't accept it as a RS due to their stated POV at the top of the article pages, which makes you have to question their motives and thus reliability on this topic. As in you wouldn't exactly take an article from the Democratic Party's newsletter to be particularly reliable about say the Republican Party, despite strong editorial oversight. I know the are a highly regarded organization that does good work, but they are not exactly a neutral media outlet. It just doesn't fit in with the spirit of RS. So, simply not enough in-depth coverage in RS at this time, but if they step up their activities then maybe they will get noticed. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said there were more, and there are: just from GNews (search on the term without limiting to oregon, and then sort out the ones that are actually about this network. it's more tedious, but otherwise things get missed.) Atlanta J & Constitution (a major regional newspaper); 2 articles in al-Jazeera, an international RS which is not likely to share the bias of the ADL [9], [10]. I agree about the ADL's bias, but they wouldn't be devoting this much space to it if it were truly trivial. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And like I said, one is good (the Atlanta paper), one is an editorial (the al-Jazeera one that has both opinion & editorial in the URL), while the last one didn't show up when limiting it to sources that mention Oregon. But, that one too is an opinion piece as it says at the top. And yes al-Jazeera doesn't share the ADL bias, in fact it is often considered to have the opposite bias (which in many ways is represented in the second opinion piece), see an example of their political cartoons from the ADL. So, like I said one good source from Atlanta, one from Portland, = not notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

even biased sources show notability, especially when they come from sources on different ends of the spectrum. Opinion pieces about an organization in major sources show notability, though they are not necessarily reliable for facts. There's enough here for an article. I wish they didn't exist. I wish at least they weren't notable. But that doesn't affect their actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't care one way or the other if they exist, I only care about the notability guidleines, which say independent, reliable sources, thus unless they are a reliable source, they actually do not count. Here, as opinion pieces, they cannot be considered reliable sources on the subjects, as opinion pieces can only be used on articles about themselves. So, again, doesn't meet the criteria at this time. Maybe if they issue some press releases a paper or two will pick up the story, but until then, no dice. User:Aboutmovies 01:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this page because someone just tried to add a piece written by Rev. Ted Pike as a source to an article. While searching on Google to figure out who Pike is I came across the WP page on the NPN, which contains useful information. For that reason I'd like to keep the article. However I just did a search in Proquest newspaper archive and found almost nothing on the group. The only significant mentions were in articles about the Urbana public access television dispute (when they aired some videos prepared by the NPN). I also chekced Google books, and found little there either. Until more sources can be found, I agree that the article should be deleted. Will Beback talk 20:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandviken (municipality)

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

Sandviken has never been a municipality. Not mentioned here (a statistic on all current and historic municipalities in the region) nor here (a paper on all municipality mergers). I believe it was a part of Bergen landdistrikt. Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems this should be merged with Sandviken Municipality. The Norwegian (bokmål)‬ article seems valid. --Oakshade (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh... no merge. The two articles are about places in two different countries. Geschichte (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - My bad. Didn't notice it was the wrong country. Thryduulf has good point about ~~merging~~ redirecting below.--Oakshade (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Redirecting is ok, after deletion. Geschichte (talk) 15:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If this article is deleted, it would make sense to redirect this title to the article about the Swedish municipality. If it isn't they should be linked by hatnotes. Thryduulf (talk) 09:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect per Thryduulf. I'd say merge to Bergen landdistrikt, but there isn't much here to merge. The redirect makes more sense going to the Swedish town than to Bergen, though hatnotes may be the better option. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 17:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. I honestly don't see the need for a redirect (it isn't really a plausible search term). Note that Sandviken is a highly real place (I have lived there myself) and is covered by the article Sandviken, Norway. Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pledge Angel

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

Procedural nom for IP editor. Rationale: Unreferenced neologism, prod removed by article creator without address the problems. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC). My opinion is below. ascidian | talk-to-me 20:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any sources/references for this phrase/neologism, although the concept seems plausible. If the concept can be verified (by someone more knowledge than me) then Merge to Angel investor. If not then Delete. ascidian | talk-to-me 20:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Plausible does not cut WP:N for a business concept. I searched various ways on Google and Bing, and found no reliable sources for this phrase. Most Ghits are for false entires, and nothing exists in Google news or Google books. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Mistery - The Whole Story

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

Mid-price compilation released by non notable european label (Carosello). Has failed to appear on any notable music chart. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Kekkomereq2 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2009 (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) 01:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally fails WP:MUSIC. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geri X

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

I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2009 (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) 00:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at this point in time. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is significant coverage, even if it's local. It was published in the St. Petersburg Times (January 25, 2008; p. 27) which has other stories about this singer, though this is the largest one. For non-local coverage, the Lincoln Journal Star took note (briefly) of her performance at South by Southwest in 2007. [11] Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Local coverage does not show notability. Joe Chill (talk) 21:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, needs more sources. Local sources can show notability. This does not. One interview helps, lists of musicians appearing in a festival does not. Miami33139 (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice to speedy renomination. Listed for 20 days with no argument for deletion aside from the nominator, but not enough participation to determine consensus. No comment since October 2 despite a second relisting. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emile Riachi

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

Bio for non-notable person. Damiens.rf 19:30, 25 September 2009 (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) 00:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I think the lead is rather misleading and might better be written as "... is an orthopaedic surgeon in the Lebanon, founder of the first service of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology in the Middle-East, and founder and first President of the Lebanese Orthopaedic Association. He also founded the Lebanese Ski Federation."--Derek Andrews (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2009 (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) 23:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I don't like relisting twice but since this article is about a living person, let's give it some more time. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EcoDater

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

Delete Non-notable website. Syruso (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is questionable. It looks more like an advertisement to attract more members. I think that having ONLY 500 members and 50 new members per week is not enough to have an article on Wikipedia compared to the other dating websites where there are millions of members List of online dating websites. It is just one of the many many normal dating sites in the world. Nothing indicates that it is notable and that it can distinguish themselves from the other normal dating sites except being eco-friendly, which is not enough. Also, the references provided are mostly news releases. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 00:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the entry for EcoDater. I am a blogger with a focus in the online dating industry. EcoDater is a dating site that represents a massive demographic in the eco-friendly/green dating segment. Viewing the list of other dating sites listed on Wikipedia and represented in the List of online dating websites, it is clear that traffic and number of members are not necessarily valid criteria for exclusion from Wikipedia without considering other factors. Note that SprayDate, ShakeMyWorld, and Compatible Partners are far down both Alexa's rankings and number of total members compared to the big dating sites, yet deserve an entry due to their specific associated demographics and/or otherwise notable features. EcoDater is the fastest growing online dating website for the sizable eco-friendly demographic and there is plenty of non-press release third-party content available to cite and support its relevance (which I am pleased to apply in editing the entry if so needed). Its blog and social networking tools also differentiate it from the hundreds of other non-segment-specific dating websites. Amyjen (Talk - Contribs) 18:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It doesn't have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. What I could find was newswires and parroting of press releases. Amyjen, I believe that you are a ~~paid~~ advocate for Ecodater, due to information I found through simple web searches - please read WP:COI before contributing again to Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 00:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you without equivocation that I am not a paid advocate for EcoDater, or paid in any other role by EcoDater or by any other dating site. I am well aware of the obvious conflict in producing an entry for Wikipedia were I accepting payment and am confident no information exists to prove otherwise. I advocate on behalf of sites that I believe present value to the online dating community without ever expecting or receiving any kind of compensation. The eco-friendly/green demographic of the online dating community has been under-served and neglected; my motivation in writing the Wikipedia entry was to enhance awareness of a service that many online daters would welcome. Here are two examples of several I found during searches that review EcoDater from an unbiased and original perspective: http://www.blisstree.com/articles/green-dating-find-your-eco-soul-mate/, http://ecohearth.com/eco-zine/social-and-connections/901-finding-eco-love-a-survey-of-the-top-green-dating-sites.html.Amyjen (Talk - Contribs) 03:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy is forbidden on Wikipedia, paid or not. Fences&Windows 15:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The style and content of the entry are not intended to advocate the website and I am surprised that it comes across to you in this way. My motivation in writing it could be conceived as advocacy in the same way that someone with an affinity and interest in rock climbing writes an entry on carabiners - this is advocacy in the sense of promoting and disseminating knowledge for the benefit of the public, and inherently informed by an underlying interest or passion. I don't believe that this is a concept discouraged by the tenets that govern Wikipedia entries, but if the EcoDater entry is deemed to be irrelevant and/or inappropriate at this time, I accept this judgment and won't comment further.Amyjen (Talk - Contribs) 00:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I also just started working with a new dating site for eco-friendly singles called EcoDater. There is a small group of us working to build it up." Fences&Windows 04:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was affiliated with EcoDater when it started and strictly on a volunteer contributory basis - an acquaintance of mine started the site and asked me for some content due to my writing skills and my interest in the green movement and online dating. I complied, believing in the concept and hoping for its success in benefiting both the green and online dating communities of which I belong. I don't see how this should necessarily preclude a neutral, compliant, third-party-referenced Wikipedia entry on an organization that is unlike almost any other with an online presence and is extremely relevant to both the green and online dating communities, neither of which are small in number. Regardless, if both the entry and my justifications for it are ultimately deemed unacceptable, I do not have a problem supporting the entry's removal and hope that it may be reentered at some later date under more appropriate circumstances, whatever they may be.Amyjen (Talk - Contribs) 10:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Particle Programmatica

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

Delete Non-notable website. Syruso (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : gnews returns 3 articles - and they look to be press releases. So, doesn't look like it meets notability for a company per WP:Org Lissajous (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upload Robots

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

Delete Non-notable website. Syruso (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable website with no mentions by any reliable sources Bfigura ^(talk) 20:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2009 (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) 00:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ADVERTISING at its finest, weasel words abound, I don't think at this time it could be salvaged. --WngLdr34 (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sa3id

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

Delete Non-notable website. Syruso (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any reliable 3rd party sources/references and article has no other references except their official site. Notability is questionable. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 22:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2009 (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) 00:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 03:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - My website has more hits on Google than this. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NRSNVNA. Algébrico (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no notability, fails WP:WEB. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 13 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gnarwl

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2009 (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) 00:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" comments mostly fail to address the sourcing requirements of WP:N and are accordingly given less weight. "Plenty of sources out there" is not enough, they must be provided here and now. Sandstein 06:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psyced

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

Not notable. Unsourced. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand since it's a recognised server software, under its previous name psycMUVE you can find more references.[12] Historically, this software is around since the 90s, was used by MTV Europe[13] and BrasNET.[14]. As a historical side note the original author brought the action command (/ME) to IRC.[15] Technically, Psyced works as a bridge between it's native PSYC protocol and various other chat/messenging networks (e.g. IRC, XMPP, webchat), not many open source projects offer this functionality. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Being "recognized server software" is not a reason Wikipedia keeps articles. A search on Swedish Google, a wiki, a doc site, and another wiki are not reliable sources. Miami33139 (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your deletion suggest should be rejected for formal reasons, you did not research the artcile's notability properly and still refuse to. The first link I provided points to more sources. Please do not mass-suggest articles to AfD in areas you are unfamiliar with, because other editors have to spend time to rescue articles that shouldn't be here in the first place. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Here an update, I investigated a bit further since the nominator refused to provide evidence for his claims. The software is popular in Germany and a direct competitor to XMPP, there are celebrity chats and political debates hosted with Psyced. The software has apparently been used in multiple German TV awards show, is this possibly the most popular German distributed chat system? Perhaps we can include this AfD in both software and Germany related deletion discussions to get better information. Dankeschoen! 83.254.210.47 (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I had a quick look at the German Wikipedia article here - and found no references there at all (apart from to the psyced website). I can't speak for how the German Wikipedia's notability criteria compare to ours, but if it is so notable in Germany, I am surprised that an article over there which has existed for 5 years has no references! All of the times in our article where this software was used are all in Germany. Perhaps this is one of those cases where the subject is notable enough for inclusion on the German Wikipedia, but not for the English one? Unless some kind of significant evidence can be found for its notability in the English-speaking world, I fail to see why this should be included in this Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Could you also take a quick look at the English Wikipedia article here - and comment on the 16 sources, print media coverage, solid DMOZ reference and over 10 years of documented history? You are long enough around to know the policy, that using Interwiki articles for claims of notability is quite irrelevant, in any way it's not something I based my argument on. Please look at the amount of evidence I presented in the English Wikipedia, there must be at least one that you deem reliable 3rd party source? 83.254.210.47 (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, let me comment on the 16 references:

is the project page - not independent
has "supported by psyced" - not about the software itself
is by the project - not independent
is a forum
describes the CPAN client, so I would accept this as a decent reference, if there was evidence of significant coverage elsewhere, and assuming Arne Gödeke is independent of the project, otherwise it is from the project
is about the WikiMedia Extension that allows Psyc to be used - useful to show that it can be used with WikiMedia, but not significant
appears to be a forum/blog
is by the project - not independent
confirms it was used by a Danish-hosted MTV award - but only says "The event featured a PSYC backstage video chat hosted by Juliette and the Licks." - not significant coverage, no details given beyond that one short sentence
Does not mention Psyc at all, from what I can see
Is a project page - not independent
confirms the existance of a gateway, but not number of hits, when last used, etc
is a project page - not independent
confirms the name change, but is from the project team, to a mailing-list, so is not independent - also no responses shown on the archive
is another mailing-list/forum - again, no response seem to be present. Also, beyond showing the name change, it doesn't give other information
(German) - This is about a lecture given last month in Germany, which will "show the current state of development." This at least confirms that the software is still alive! However, if that is the case, the arguments below about old software not having many references online is moot - if it is still beign developed, there should be something out there...

- - - - Before I put my contribution below, I did check these (well, most of them - I'll be honest, there were a couple I hadn't checked - the ones that seemed obviously from the project themselves, and so not independent). I still say that there is insufficient evidence of notability, insufficient coverage for a product that is still being developed. Unless evidence to the contrary is provided, I stand by my delete !vote -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Great we are getting somewhere! Could you be so kind and also review on the DMOZ reference and the print media coverage? 83.254.210.47 (talk) 11:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        First, the article - well, as only the intro is there, I can't comment on how good or otherwise this is - it's about the software and the person, but an insufficient amount of the article is present to be able to say how reliable it is.
        
        The DMOZ link shows that it's on dmoz's list, but that then again, of the 20 other entries on that list, only SILC has an article on here. VolanoChat has been deleted several times in different guises (see here). Now the presence or otherwise of other articles is not directly applicable to this discussion, but the point is that just being on the DMOZ list does not inherently make it notable - it merely confirms the existence of the software - which no one has disputed.
        
        As far as I am concerned, that is the end of the discussion on the current sources. If new sources of information appear (see my message below) then I'll look at those, and consider the case based on those. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks! Looks like we have a good representation from both points of view. To take up one of your arguments, which I believe misrepresents how software development works, do you know of any product in the software industry that is actively used and not being developed? Let's take for example Apache, Firefox and Microsoft Windows which are all well known examples and still being further developed. If you look into the sources, you can see that there is documentation for psyced's use in a productive environment since the 1990s. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of sources out there, not nn by any means. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk · contribs) 21:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If sources satisfying WP:N exist, please bring them forward. Google is not finding them, and I'm not seeing them. Remember there has to be enough to write a decent article about the software, not just a listing of its features. Wikipedia is not a catalog for software, after all. Ray^Talk 02:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there are "plenty of sources out there", put your money where your proverbial mouth is and demonstrate that. I'm not seeing it. JBsupreme (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In spite of ARS rescue tag, no sources have come to light. Abductive (reasoning) 19:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find significant coverage from reliable sources. I'm happy for Oldlaptop321 to find those sources out there and add them to this article - in which case I'll change my !vote if they are significant and from reliable sources - but I can't find them. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 12:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 13:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable software since it was mentioned as being used at notable events, like the listed MTV thing. Obviously they aren't going to go into great detail about something like this. Dream Focus 03:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and the sources and articles that have been included in this article since it was originally nominated for AfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article in decent enough shape to stay. Richard (talk) 04:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The discussion demonstrates convincingly that coverage of the subject is superficial, not independent and/or unreliable. Userfication declined because what the article needs is sourcing, and that does not require userfication. Sandstein 06:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PsyBNC

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

Not notable, sourced to newsgroups and documentation. WIkipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clearly a notable piece of software.

Note: You didn't add the AfD tag correctly, go back and add it correctly.

--Hm2k (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request DO NOT DELETE. Move to my user space if the outcome is delete. Although I'm fairly sure it will be kept. Thanks. --Hm2k (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, clearly notable, no reason at all to delete. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk · contribs) 21:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you show how? Miami33139 (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is well sourced. Some of the sources listed (the ones assoicated with the project's own website) are not independant enough to establish notability but these 3 [[16]], [[17]], and [[18]] are. I don't understand why this article would ever have been nominated for deletion in the first place. Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do hope you are kidding. Ubuntu help documentation is effectively self-published. The University of Waterloo is primarily a mere mention, including this software when they found that irc based botnets have been found on their network. Freshports is regurgitation from the developer, nothing more, and not independent. Miami33139 (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No I am really not kidding. If you don't like those 3 how about these that were not used as sources by the article: [19], [20]. I am sure I could find more if I were willing to sort through all 386,000 google hits. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I was hoping so, because those new sources are entirely not reliable. Everything2 is user-submitted content. Astahost is user-submitted content AND that content is a straight copy-paste from the Ubuntu docs. User submitted content is not reliable as a reference, and is absolutely not relevant to establish notability. Please read WP:N and WP:RS to understand notability and reliable sourcing. Miami33139 (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You appear to be more familiar than I am with sources in this subject area, and I am perhaps having more trouble telling reliable independant secondary sources from self published sources than I usuually do in other areas. Perhaps someone should revive Wikipedia:Notability (software) to help with some of this. The following sources seem reasonable to me but if you can show that they are also not independant secondary sources then perhaps you are right and there are none. The last ones I was able to find are: [21], [22], [23].
        1 - file.net, a malware identification and removal site, not necessarily about this software as it says "Some malware camouflage themselves as psybnc.exe", probably does nothing to establish notability. 2 - this is documentation at a minor ISP, possibly a RS as documentation, but does not establish notability. 3 - same as #2, self-help documentation from an ISP. I do not see these things as establishing notability, merely that the software exists. Miami33139 (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and expand, solid references, software is widely used and documented. There are over 300,000 Google hits. Wikipedia is not a thimble. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the existing sources contribute to establishing notability. Google hits are not a reference. Miami33139 (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please do not mass-suggest articles to AfD in areas you are unfamiliar with. Re-nomination without new reasons. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please log in with your normal account if you have one. This is not a vote. JBsupreme (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 83.254.210.47 -- you mention to expand; please help us to keep the article and go to it and expand it. :) Any single constructive edit would improve it to a more acceptable level, including sources; not just the AfD discussion. --Mokhov (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the advice, did some editing. Not sure what's the best way to integrate books as references, there is offline coverage in print media and magazines [24]. Linux Magazine and DMOZ reference [25] to demonstrates that psyBNC is a recognised software in the IRC bouncer category. Furthermore is this software from historical value, as the article mentions was psyBNC the first bouncer that allowed to protect your IRC nickname even when you are offline. An absolutely novelty in the late 90s after IRCnet splitted away from EFnet and nickname disputes and nickname collisions were still a regular issue. This AfD discussion is in my opinion an example why mass-nomination of software articles is a problem, the nominator didn't research the topic properly and even unintentionally is unable to include the technical and historical implications in his presentation. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Talk about bad sources. DMOZ, a user-editable site, that lists that this software exists. LinuxMag, one mention in one paragraph in an article that is not about psybnc, but about how to spot rogue processes running on a server, and psybnc is a running process on the machine. Please stop adding trivial mentions! Miami33139 (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Let me correct this, DMOZ is not a user-editable site [26] and for example Google uses it for page rank determination (a single entry can improve a site's page rank). Linux Magazine is a well known publication and the cover story falsifies your claim that psyBNC is only sourced by newsgroups and documentation. Here is another source from Heise [27]. This is not a vote, please come forward with some evidence. For example what have you searched for, how many hits did you get, what was the best reference you could find? Do you have a background on the subject and (independently from any prior knowledge) which are 4 most prominent IRC bouncers have you identified in your research? Please prove you researched the topic properly for the purpose of establishing a meaningful notability discussion. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 10:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow. I see a flood of keeps here, again a sign of systemic bias on Wikipedia for certain internet related things. We would not tolerate such a lack of sourcing on any other subject. While I do see lots of hand waving I've yet to see convincing evidence of non-trivial coverage of this subject from multiple reliable third party publications. That's how we judge notability here on Wikipedia, not by how much WP:ULIKEIT. JBsupreme (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ... and not by WP:UDONTLIKEIT either ;) --Mokhov (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per WP:IAR; while the sources may be better and improved (it is a general problem for software alike), the article is not bad actually. And there are several interwikis too implying people there considered it sufficiently notable there to keep. Userfy to me if deleted. --Mokhov (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we've been ignoring the rules a bit too much here and demonstrating some sort of bias/favoritism toward internet related articles as of late. I personally find this shocking. I have no objection to you putting this in your userspace (although others might) but we certainly cannot host it in the main article space if there isn't evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bias and favoritism towards the internet? Is that aside from the fact that this is an internet based encyclopaedia edited by users via the internet, by people are are internet savvy and that the internet is possibly the most important invention of our time? I can't think why this could be... *sigh* --Hm2k (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with JBsupreme here. the fact is that there is not one single third party, reliable source here with psybnc as its topic. trivial mentions do not equal notability. this is unfortunate in situations like this, and maybe the notability policy can be updated for things like software, because i used to use psybnc (briefly - preferred the basic bnc.c), and so i can attest to the fact that it was important to hundreds of people. but that does not mean it's notable per wikipedia's standards. this vote has to be delete for the sake of the encyclopedia. this is not an indiscriminate collection of internet nostalgia Theserialcomma (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - Although i know the program to be quite popular, the media coverage remains quite poor. I will have to agree that in its current state of thoroughness and sourcing, the article should go. In case the article gets deleted: If anyone wants to pick up where the article was left, i saved a copy of the article here.~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 08:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Learning through play

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

Delete - appears to be a neologism. I have searched and can't seem to find reliable sources that demonstrate notability for this expression. I believe this article was created as a platform to link to Mimi Toys, an external link which I have now removed. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While appreciating concern about the Mimi Toys link the term itself is well recognised. I imagine there is enough for a stand alone article which ties in with Jean Piaget, Seymour Papert et. al. If not an article then a redirect into something like Constructivism (learning theory) / Learning#Play / Play_(activity)#Childhood_and_play / Play value. Lame Name (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the additional information with WP:RS. Nomination withdrawn. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The topic has massive notability - just see the books link above. As the nominator has withdrawn, we are done here. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. MuZemike 23:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bip IRC Proxy

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

Not notable. Unsourced. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign anywhere this meets GNG, A search for any RS/sig coverage comes up empty. Triplestop x3 20:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the clear lack of notability as evidenced by a complete lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications! JBsupreme (talk) 22:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: This is part of Quiet_Internet_Pager from Quiet Internet Pager. Forums are located here, QIP Forums You will most likely need to use Google Translate to view it, but it is out there, and several articles reference this software including The Gameguard Wikipedia entry. --Apb91781 (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC) — Apb91781 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep and expand. Enough sources, actively used software, prominent in it's own category:[28][29][30][31]. Nominator is not familiar with chat/messenger related topic and fails to provide compelling reasons for deletion. Wikipedia is not a thimble. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 10:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...and so what makes you the expert? The basis for determining notability on Wikipedia is non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications (hint: BLOGS DON'T COUNT) -- this subject lacks said coverage hence the article can and should be deleted. JBsupreme (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis of the Hartwell blog, if he is indeed an expert; otherwise merge as Apb suggests. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on IP comment basis, and fact that article shouldn't be nominated just because its unsourced. That doesn't mean unsourceable. --Milowent (talk) 04:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can find enough material to validate the features and functionality of the software so that the article would satisfy WP:V, however I am not able to find enough material outside of the Hartwell blog for the purposes of WP:N. My own preference for a short borderline stub article such as this would be to merge it into a larger Comparison or parent article, but as of this moment I'm not really sure that we have a proper target article where it could be merged. Two possible options would be Comparison of Internet Relay Chat bouncers or even possibly BNC (software). I'm thinking given some of the similar issues with regards to other IRC-bouncer software articles it may in fact be best to create a "Comparison of Internet Relay Chat bouncers" comparison article where these can be merged and redirected. The later "BNC (software)" article is probably best left as an overview of the subject of the concept of a network connection "bouncer". --Tothwolf (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not cite the reliable independent sources that they claim exist, and the article as is is indeed sourced only to "wikis, blogs, and documentation". Ad hominems don't help, either. This means that I have to give the "keep" opinions less weight than the "delete" opinions, which make reference to the well-established sourcing requirements of WP:N. Sandstein 17:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZNC (IRC bouncer)

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

Not notable. Sourced to wikis, blogs, and documentation. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, dont delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iocc (talk • contribs) 06:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous, ZNC has a large community and is easily the second most popular bouncer behind psyBNC. If you want to go down this road, you will have to delete psyced, InspIRCd, Gozerbot, PBot, Psotnic, Mozbot, EnergyMech and Darkbot, and a lot of other articles as well. Also, if you wanted to follow through with Wikipedia is not a software directory, please go ahead and delete: Comparison of IRC clients, Comparison of mobile IRC clients, Comparison of IRC daemons, Comparison of IRC services and 99% of the entries in Category:Internet_Relay_Chat_clients. Thanks for listening and please re-consider your deletion request. Fl4kes (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply "99% of the entries in Category:Internet_Relay_Chat_clients" might be a good idea. I image a dozen or so have good references and the rest don't. Miami33139 (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to compare the recent download statistics of ZNC and psyBNC, 2447 downloads of ZNC-0.074 in 2 months^[1], and 13386 downloads of psyBNC 2.3.2.7 in over four years^[2]. That makes about 40 ZNC downloads per day, and only around 7 for psyBNC. Fl4kes (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Fl4kes, Please don't feed the troll, Miami33139 is currently on a crusade to delete all articles I've worked on since they finally managed to run off User:Ed Fitzgerald and are now bored. They just mass-AfD'd a bunch of IRC-related articles to get revenge on me for calling them out on their behaviour elsewhere. The majority of these articles can be improved and sourced, but Miami33139 has a vested interest in not doing so as this is a game to them to see just how many they can get deleted. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Grow up and stop stooping to personal attacks. If you can show notability for this subject, then do so. Your handwaving has become tiresome. JBsupreme (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is clearly notable, Wikipedia does have articles on notable software, without being a software directory. Non-notable would be something for which no sources exist, or where all sources are primary sources. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk · contribs) 00:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You said that a non-notable piece of software would be one where all sources are primary sources. That is true for this article! Miami33139 (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - How do you know? Please describe what steps you took to look for sources. Uncle G (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uncle G, that was a specific reply to the comment from Oldlaptop321. I looked at the sources provided for this article that are currently in it. However, before I nominated this article, I looked at the first 50 hits on books.google.com, scholar.google.com, and news.google.com, for 'znc irc' (not quoted as a search term) and found nothing of interest. Miami33139 (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and expand, solid references and software still in use. Wikipedia is not a thimble. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If there are solid references, please add them to the article. They are not there now. Miami33139 (talk) 20:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please do not mass-suggest articles to AfD in areas you are unfamiliar with. No compelling reasons for deletion given by nom. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please log in with your regular account so that we may validate you are not vote stacking. JBsupreme (talk) 07:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extra strong delete. This is not a vote kids. Remember that the closing administrator has full discretion to close this as a delete if no one can produce a solid argument for notability of this product, backed by non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage in reliable sources to show notability. Quantpole (talk) 09:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find RS or any other evidence this pass GNG. Existing refs fail RS or are self pub Triplestop x3 22:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- still, it is used by many people, which e.g. [32] shows. Sadly, many IRC things don't have good written references as many trends and discussions take place in the temporary IRC itself. Yarcanox (talk) 09:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was userfy to User:Mokhov/Psotnic as notability has not been credibly established. Skomorokh, barbarian 07:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psotnic

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

Not notable. No sources. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom due to a lack of sources which would indicate the notability of this software product. Google hits are really not relevant kids. JBsupreme (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No references given on page. My searching could not find any news hits, book references, or coverage in reliable sources. Quantpole (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, numerous sources, software is widely used and prominent in its own category: [33][34][35][36]. Nominator is not familiar with chat/messenger related topics and fails to provide compelling reasons for deletion. Wikipedia is not a thimble. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 11:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those are reliable sources that show significant coverage of the subject matter. Quantpole (talk) 12:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please elaborate in a way that explains to me and a closing admin what you have done to falsify a) there are numerous sources b) software is widely used c) software is prominent in its own category. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The first two sources say nothing about it. The second two are commerce sites for unix hosts, with no decent info. These wouldn't be useful for an article, even if they were reliable sources, which they don't appear to be. Whether the software is prominent or not is shown by its coverage in reliable sources. As it hasn't received this coverage, it is not shown to be prominent. Quantpole (talk) 12:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please answer the question and not just disagree with my references. So far you did not bring up any evidence on your own that would falsify my statements a-c. For example what have you searched for, how many hits did you get, what was the best reference you could find? Do you have a background on the subject and (independently from any prior knowledge) which are 4 most prominent IRC bots have you identified in your research? It would be good to synchronise our research to establish a foundation for a meaningful notability discussion. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 13:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I have looked for sources myself, and satisfied myself that I could not find sufficient coverage to write an article. I have followed WP:BEFORE, it is now up to you, in accordance with WP:BURDEN. I'm not interested in anything else, as it is not related to whether this article should be kept or deleted. Quantpole (talk) 13:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to kindly ask that 83.254.210.47 (talk · contribs) login with their real account and then start reading up on what is acceptable as a source on Wikipedia. JBsupreme (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy to me, please, under User:Mokhov/Psotnic if deleted. Thanks. --Mokhov (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Any redirect is an editorial matter. Sandstein 17:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social evil

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

Lacks references, and is basically a dictionary definition, while Wikipedia is not a dictionary. and is an almost unavoidably subjective one, as would be almost any additional content one would write for this generic term. The inclusion of particular items in the See Also list is likewise subjective. School leaving age involves a social evil? Gay rights: some people will call homosexuality a social evil, others will call homophobia one. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree, this is original research by synthesis and of very little use to anyone since, as the nominator points out, the perception of "evil" is subjective even if reliable sources are found; hence every "evil" and its polar opposite would be presented. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Social evil is a proper term, not a subjective topic. I believe contributors can expand the article over time.
- I really don't think so. Once the term has been defined, if it can even be defined both neutrally and satisfactorily, all I think you can do is list examples or discuss specific examples. But discussions of specific examples belong in the articles on those examples; I don't see how you can have a generic discussion of social evils as a general class. And, again, the selection of examples is highly subjective. Even when people are in agreement about whether something is bad, what determines that it's a social evil? Is poverty a social evil? It's a social misfortune and a social problem, but I wouldn't apply the term "social evil" to it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and salt. This is a blatant example of WP:SOAP that is backed up by that well-known British bunch of soapboxers, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Evil Nearly every social event may be seen by some group in society as a social evil, even childbirth: beyond 2.1 per couple is a social evil to strict malthusians, no matter how much the children are loved. what can be included in social evil is inherently ambivalent, so all this could be is a dictionary definition, which WP is not. it is a term used commonly, but that doesnt mean it gets an encyclopedia entry. Only if a particular, well established group used this phrase consistently, and it became a well used meme, even if used in a biased or political manner, and this use was debated among others not in the group, and the whole discussion was mentioned in third party sources, then we have an article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:45, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The discussion provides several references to substantial coverage in reliable sources, e.g. [37]. Sandstein 07:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe's Own Editor

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not as notable as vi, but it's also not generally unknown. The Debian and Ubuntu popularity-contest opt-in statistics indicate that the joe packages are installed on over 17K machines and actively used on over 2K [38] [39] - and that's just what is measured via popcon. Also try using "joe editor" for findsources, the original expanded name is used as our article title simply because of disambiguation, in practice everyone simply calls it joe. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't make the article pass WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was citing popcon stats merely as an indication of general notability, not in reference to your claim of significant coverage. In any case, here's the other syntax for findsources, see if you can find relevant significant coverage in there: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I looked there and didn't find significant coverage. I don't understand why your !vote is keep. Joe Chill (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, conversely I don't understand why you can't see the coverage as significant when there are numerous references to it in a variety of topical items such as Unix- and Linux-related web sites and books (even if not all of them are detailed), and it's clear that the software is being widely distributed (through well-known Linux distributions) and has been for over a decade, ever since joe first rose to prominence. I've gone through the findsources searches and found plenty of references within a dozen clicks, so I fail to see a violation of the notability guidelines. In addition I find it bizarre that you would nominate joe for deletion based on WP:N, but at the same time ignore the linked jupp (editor) which seems less notable by a magnitude. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that it's bizarre that you want me to check the notability of everything that's linked in a software article. Joe Chill (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        This discussion might not be helping the AFD. I'll just stop replying to this and see what others say. Joe Chill (talk) 23:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment see also Talk:Editor war#What about joe? :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't look to meet WP:N and the idea of wp describing every last piece of software in the world isn't attractive; of course, this could mean a pogrom for the myriad articles on non-notable text editors (e.g. nano, nedit, gobby etc). Lissajous (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I use 'nano' all the time. Quite the opposite of non-notable. --MarsRover (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, given more than trivial coverage in dozens of books about linux, linked to above. "Significant" coverage does not mean exclusive coverage, although there are also some independent tech guides that are exclusive [40] --Karnesky (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How tos have never shown notability. Joe Chill (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the dozens of books do. --Karnesky (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which they are tech guides. Joe Chill (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please show me where in WP:RS that, e.g., O'reilly books are somehow below some threshold for WP:V and WP:N. --Karnesky (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm just going by what I've seen many times in discussions about notability. Joe Chill (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The policy states the standard is being published in reliable third-party sources. If you would like to change policy or guidelines, this is not the place to do it. If you think a different policy or guideline applies here, please point to it precisely. --Karnesky (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        There you go assuming bad faith again. I wasn't trying to change the guideline. Whenever I participated in software AFDs, that was usually the concensus. With how many times that I have seen it, it seemed like it was community concensus about software articles. Joe Chill (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I never assumed bad faith on your part & I don't see how my statement could be misconstrued. If anything, I have the good faith that you would want to be more familiar with our policy. FWIW: I also participate in deletion discussions, but have never seen a kind of consensus against non-vanity technical books that you describe. I am interested in being pointed to such discussions, but doubt they are topical for this particular discussion. Feel free to ping my talk page or start a discussion at the village pump. --Karnesky (talk) 00:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You asked me if I had a conflict of interest and you posted wikilawyering in your edit summary. Also, I'm very familiar with notability guidelines (so familiar that I make most editors mad when I try to refute what they say). Joe Chill (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        People! I wish you could do as much work on the article as good as contributing comments to this AfD! :) Let's not pinch each other tit-for-tat more and not write a new comment below this one on this thread and focus on more constructive things :) Let's no "bindingly" agree to write at most one comment per !vote and a comment :) --Mokhov (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Joy, here is my explanation which you seem to have missed. Joe Chill (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Who do you think you are responding to? --Karnesky (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Joy. It was a test to see if she was paying attention to the entire discussion. Joe Chill (talk) 23:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, I disagree. The standard of notability does not preclude third-party documentation, it precludes various forms of advertising. You can make the claim that people who write books or blogs about software have a vested interest in automatically advertising the same software, but then that's a horribly slippery slope. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not my belief. Joe Chill (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete documentation does not show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Keep Minor but nontrivial player among unix text editors; Significant in the context of the unix command line as a command worth mentioning (see coverage in several unix books alongside emacs & vi, and an article on configuring it). Slightly ignoring the rules on this one, but with the justification that besides the vi-emacs wars, console unix text editors aren't the sexiest topic to write about. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sexiest is a funny way of putting it. Joe Chill (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why are you replying to every post in this thread? Do you have a COI? --Karnesky (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't see why there is people that think that if someone participates a lot in an AFD, they are editing in bad faith. Please assume good faith. Joe Chill (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, "juiciest", whatever. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think there is sufficient notability for the editor even if its pseudo namesake doesn't agree :-) Karnesky and I improved the article a bit, and even as stub as it is, it's keepworthy; this is a historical text editor (it's true, not the sexiest topic to write about). --Mokhov (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the book sources others have linked to above. This has coverage in a huge number of independent reliable publications, easily demonstrating notability. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep from historical value, a common editor in the 1990s which made it into many early Unix/Linux distributions. Better known as 'joe', personally used it on at least three different Unix variants at school and work. There are references in online and offline media, the reason for this nomination is a mystery to me. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is what annoys me the most in AFD: an editor that doesn't pay attention to the entire discussion. Joe Chill (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to point out that you did a sloppy research, provided no compelling arguments for deletion and now massively interfere with consensus building. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're just saying that because you disagree with me which is definately not civil. Joe Chill (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Disagreeing with you is not civil? :) Come one, you nominated one of the best known CLI text editors. Isn't it time to take back this nomination? 83.254.210.47 (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I said that the way you said it isn't. I couldn't withdraw even if I wanted too because of the deletes. Joe Chill (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Technically you still could state Withdrawn as a !vote, you just can't close the AfD. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and Schroder's book:
Schroder, Carla (2004-12-01). "Editing Text Files with JOE and Vim". Linux Cookbook (1st ed.). Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly Media. pp. 68 –&#32, 77. ISBN 0-596-00640-3. Retrieved 2009-09-26.
--Tothwolf (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A popular unix-based editor and one that has received significant coverage in reliable sources: [41], [42], [43].--Michig (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was also able to find several sources just using Google, and the editor seems to have historical importance in the early days of Linux. I my opinion the article could do a better job of describing that, but that is hardly a reason for deletion.Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Going keep for this one - and this is pretty much a combination of the old software guidelines and WP:IAR. The only source we have for this is popcon (above) and the dev status - vitality, download hits (see, again, Debian's popcon utility), that sort of thing. Perhaps the religious wars over on usenet. The problem that we're going to run into here is that Free software - be it as in beer or freedom - won't get the same coverage as, say, Microsoft Word, or stuff like that. Face it, Wired Magazine is not going to do a review on this (and it's probably because their readers really don't care about a popular CLI editor under *nix). All this and more owes to my intentional ignorance of the rules - this is a notable piece of software, but the notability you find is really not convenient to Wikipedia. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still not seeing the notability here for this "popular" editor. JBsupreme (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note for closing admin, the above !vote by JBsupreme was made in retaliation for my comments at this DRV and several related AfDs. This is in direct conflict with the fact that this software has been covered in so many published works. [44] --Tothwolf (talk) 08:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage looks sufficient to me. Linux Magazine published an article about it. Dream Focus 18:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge as the people above wrote "joe" was used as default editor in many Linux releases (e.g. Slackware). The fact that it is not used widely today is no reason for deletion (otherwise the article about MS-DOS must be deleted, too). However I would merge articles like Jupp (editor) to this article. Another idea would be the creation of a page "unix text editors" that will contain short descriptions of vi etc. and links to these Wikipedia articles as well as "full" descriptions of tools like "joe". Mr1278 (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a notable unix editor. I was surprised to see this one nominated for deletion. The name sounds silly but its not a personal project used by just "Joe". --MarsRover (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article of this venerable, notable and deeply respected Unix text editor. Crafty (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It was my favorite editor back in my shell days. I'm not sure if the sources sited by others here would be considered "significant coverage" or not but from the ones a skimmed, I think it squeaks by. However, I'm not going to bold the word "keep" because at this point I don't think I could make anything other then an ILIKEIT or NOHARM argument. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Applying WP:ONEEVENT is seldom a clear-cut matter; reasonable people can disagree (and here they do) about whether this is indeed a "one event situation" or whether the subject warrants an article of her own essentially for the reasons provided by Ronnotel. At this time, there's no consensus for deletion, but with a few months' hindsight, it might be easier to evaluate whether "the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one". Sandstein 17:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Giles

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

Per WP:ONEEVENT. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. John Asfukzenski (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep From WP:ONEEVENT: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Is the event highly significant? Yes, it gets thousands of hits in the reliable sources. According to multiple sources, the viability of ACORN is now in question because of this event. Was Ms. Giles' role a large one? Undeniably. It was her idea from the start and the entire premise of the event depends on her actions. Ronnotel (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the neutrality of the article is improved. Eeekster (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Ronnotel that the event was highly significant in that it gets thousands of hits and that the viability of ACORN has been questioned. But the subject herself doesn't seem exceptionally notable; if this is her claim to fame, shouldn't she just be folded into a subsection of the ACORN article? As it stands now, the substantive portion of the article on Ms. Giles is two sentences to the effect that she is a 20 year old journalism student who studies at Florida International University and writes for BigGovernment.com. The referenced excerpt from WP:ONEEVENT states "a separate article is generally appropriate", but there isn't much else generally to note about Ms. Giles. If her notability was only her idea to participate in a video pretending to be a prostitute to see what she could elicit from ACORN social workers, I'm thinking it's more appropriate to include her in the ACORN article instead.--AzureCitizen (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, she's also recently become the subject of a $5M lawsuit by ACORN for her actions. And as such, has becoming a cause celebre among conservatives and free speech proponents. This is more than just a student journalism project. If she wasn't notable before this, I would submit that ACORN's reaction has made her so. Ronnotel (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can definitely see what you're driving at, with regard to there being much interest in her right now because of the battle over ACORN and her cause celebre status with conservatives and some free speech proponents. But as it stands right now apart from the ACORN mess and lawsuit, she is just a young college student majoring in a certain subject attending a certain university and working as columnist at a .Com. If someone searches her name on Wikipedia and it links directly to the subsection article on ACORN, and that subsection includes the facts above (that she goes to college, and writes as a columnist), can we really say that is insufficient and her notability requires a separate biographical article for her? Surely there are tens of millions of people who it could be said "go to X school, are majoring in X, and do X for work." Is there anything, apart from the ACORN drama, that makes her notable? As such, does her wikipedia information really need to be listed apart (separate) from the ACORN article, in another article which says the same thing? --AzureCitizen (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You forget to note that she originated the idea for the ACORN sting. The amount of people she has affected with her story is staggering. She came up with the 2nd most important story of the year. I for one am very interested in her story and not having to dredge through other articles to have a focus on her and her thinking, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.124.55 (talk • contribs)
Delete unless she becomes notable for something else. This one event isn't enough notability for an article. JohnWBarber (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. If we remove the acorn info, she's completely non-notable, so this should really be covered (and I think it already is) in an ACORN article not here. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ronnotel. I believe the ACORN lawsuit qualifies as a unique "event". The subject continues to be interviewed by mainstream media sources, and that coverage shows no signs of abating. I find it interesting that ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy has also been nominated for deletion. - Crockspot (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ONEEVENT and Ronnotel. Her notability has definitely increased, especially now that ACORN has filed their lawsuit. Taking that into consideration, along with her development of the original idea, involvement in the undercover videos and their far-reaching consequences, she has enough merit to warrant a separate article as noted in WP:ONEEVENT. - Neo3DGfx (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and put any content not already in acorn controversy article there. bfigura said it: she has zero notability outside of this event, and the real event is the alleged illegal behavior of acorn, the political reaction to it, lawsuit etc. shes just the trigger, so she deserves a mention in the main article, until she does more than appear on talking heads shows.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BLP1E, non-notable person beyond singular event. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Anything that is notable here can just as easily be merged into ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy, which seems to be set to survive its AfD. Since that article describes the same material if both of them were retained you would have needless duplication. Rusty Cashman (talk) 08:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I came here to this page this morning thinking I would say delete based on subject notability being only from a single event, but fully realizing that someday in the future, the well-cited info on Ms. Giles would be likely to be recycled should she ever become more notable due to a second notable item. However, after just reading the WP:NOTABILITY (OneEvent section) it is generally appropriate to keep the article in the specific narrow case where the event is significant and the individuals role in the event was a large one. So I would say, keep it. N2e (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per what Rusty and Blaxthos said: the information is covered in ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy, and she is not notable past this one event.--Henry talk 16:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete 80 percent of the article is nothing more than stuff that can be found here. Only two sentences in the entire article actually discuss who she is. I honestly cannot believe this is even debatable. It fails WP:1E by a mile. Richard (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy (assuming that one is kept, which it looks like it likely will be at the moment). --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge there is almost nothing here about her--in fact, looking at the refs, i can find it impossible to actually find anything about her. (though there are sources available--see GNews). This is hardly a NPOV article, as it pretends the group sponsoring her involved are neutral political organizations, which they are not, as their own web pages demonstrate [45] But the importance in anh case is the story.
Merge with ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy or Keep and revise (a poorly written article is not grounds for deletion). Hannah has been in the news since the story broke, and it's obvious this story will continue as ACORN's funding is challenged and the suits against Hannah play out in the courts. In short, we've seen a lot of her already at the national and international level (BBC), and there's no indication this will let up. Rklawton (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find it totally amazing that Wikipedia would even be discussing deleting the article on the person who originated the entire idea of the ACORN sting. Without her, the entire ACORN story would not have emerged. I would say she would be #2 on the list of Time's Person Of The Year award, with President Obama as #1. And Wikipedia is talking about deleting here? Amazing. What is happening to such a great concept as Wikipedia? Whether or not you like the news, it is a HUGE news story and I know it will be documented everywhere, but Wikipedia?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.124.55 (talk • contribs)

CommentWhile it looks like the story is big enough to allow for an article on this person, i think this article should be relatively small, as its about HER (she hasnt actually done much yet), not the sting and its aftermath, which should be the major article, along with the ACORN article. and, whoa, you just showed your bias here. ACORN is a bit player on the national scene, and their previous "scandal" was a politically hyped up non-event. Ms. Giles as person of the year? thats beyond the pale. Even if this results in the total takedown of ACORN, and even if ACORN has organizational complicity here, so what? Unless we find evidence that ACORN is a branch of al-qaeda, or space aliens, etc, this is not that important. Ms Giles is NOT that notable. if ACORN was so vulnerable, this would have happened eventually. shes not woodward and bernstein. and WP IS documenting this event, and we DO have to debate this. How about articles for each of the defendants, or the lawyers on either side, or the cameraman shooting the film? there is a threshhold for notability for each article, each judged on its own merits. WP is doing fine, thank you.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment Perhaps I was a wee bit over the top (attempt at hint of sarcasm ;\ ). However, the beauty of Wikipedia is the ability to freely expose both sides of an issue. The idea was simple, but then again she did follow through, etc. My desire is to make sure that the originator of an idea is documented. I do concur the article should be small and relate relevant bio info and appreciate the feedback. I sense a consensus forming. Thanks for the response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.124.55 (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The ONEEVENT concept is moot now that ACORN has filed a $5M lawsuit against Ms Giles, accusing her of breaking Maryland law in the taping of conversations. It turns this into an even bigger event concerning free speech, the press, and privacy within tax-funded organizations. Ignoring subjective matters for a minute - as a matter of law, media attention, and public concern that will now be focused on the legal outcome, this has also now become a media rights and a test of whistleblower rights as it relates to taping a conversation. If moved to Federal court, the stakes could be larger. The actions of Ms Giles were also the precipitant for Congressional action as well as many other Federal and state agencies and major corporations in stripping both money and power from one of the most powerful national political organizations in the country, and a strong player in the election of the sitting President. One must not only look at ONEEVENT, but at the social, economic, and political significance of that one event. If it is enough that the Congress of the United States can put together and pass a partisan-free bill based on the results of Ms. Giles investigations and pass it within days, the event should be significant enough for Wiki. Since she was the impetus and played at least a 50% part in it, it is hard to diminish her role. ONEEVENT is not relevant for these reasons. Political purpose aside, Ms. Giles is a huge story in journalism at the present and is under discussion in many areas of journalism. That too makes Ms. Giles Wiki-able. I would agree however, that information concerning sponsoring groups should be eliminated unless and/or until they become relevant to who she is or she becomes strongly attached to the group.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shardman (talk • contribs)
KEEP IT. Both sides are shown along with a note that since the activity was illegal, represenatatives of ACORN are filling suit against those who obtained it; not those who commited it onder their employ. How much more more real can that be??

above moved from talk page to project page by Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment she is no Gavrilo Princip, though comparing articles is not the best way to proceed. her article needs to be no larger than his i would say.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It is NOT a one event topic. She has created a situation where an old and famous organization has been stripped clean of federal tax dollars AND that organization has filed a bogus lawsuit against her. She is participating in a new form of investigative journalism that this article does not relate and she is part of an event. I think the argument that she is a non-notable person involved in singular event oversimplifies what she has done and is still the part of--of an on-going event.--98.196.129.137 (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I love the irrational biases shown here. the lawsuit is not "bogus", and anyway who are we to say that its bogus? last time i heard, i cannot record someone without their knowledge unless i am a police officer or govt agent with probable cause. ever hear of the constitution? it applies equally to those we agree AND disagree with. there is validity in theory to the lawsuit, just as there is a political reality that could mean ACORN is shut down regardless of their culpability, or the fairness of it. thats all reportable and notable, and can be reported with NPOV fairly easily. and i never said the whole subject is a single event. its not. but she is still not notable beyond her role, though that, as i said, at this point justifies a small article, but not a puff piece.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So let's see. You are pointing out that, in your opinion, other people biases are "irrational". Does that imply that your biases are rational? Everyone has a bias, whether they admit it or not. How do you know the lawsuit is not "bogus"? What evidence do provide for your conclusion. You provide a conclusion without evidence. All you have provided for your conclusion that in your opinion (not fact mind you) that you believe the lawsuit is not "bogus." On top of that you provide the conclusion that other people's biases are "irrational". Of course, you do not provide any evidence or even an example of other people's biases as irrational. You don't even make it clear what "biases" you are referring to. You just proclaim without evidence or fact that other people (I'm assuming anyone that does not agree with you) have "irrational" biases. Under this form of illogical argumentation, I could argue that you biases are "irrational" also. I don't need evidence or support of any form or fashion--just my opinion. This is known as the "I said it, it must be true" argument. It is a very, very weak form of defense. Also, you comment that "you can't record someone" without their knowledge is simply a factually incorrect statement. It has NOTHING to do with the article about whether the Hannah Giles article should stay or go. It is also factually flat out wrong. Now, in most states of the Union you CAN record someone without permission completely legally. That is a fact. Probable cause only applies to government officials, not to private citizens such as Hannah Giles. It does not apply to Hannah Giles. That is fact. And "probable cause" is not even the focus of the lawsuit. Now, there is a law in the State of Maryland that may or may not apply to her. That is the focus of the lawsuit. What you state above is a misrepresentation of the lawsuit's substance. Yeah, I read all about the constitution in law school and I heard correctly, unlike you, that the Fourth Amendment applies to cops, prosecutors, and others acting on behalf of the state, etc--not private citizens such as Hannah Giles. So your argument concerning "probable cause" is "bogus" to steal a phrase. So please don't attack other posters when you comments are "irrational" and your arguments are "bogus".--98.196.129.137 (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said the lawsuit wasnt bogus. i said it appeared to have some theoretical validity. I dont care if youre justice roberts, your opinions are not fact here. you said "bogus lawsuit". until a reliable source describes it as bogus, or until its thrown out of court or decided entirely in ms giles favor, its neither bogus nor legit. so thats the bias, saying its "bogus", without sources to back it up. of course i have a bias, and its clearly pro acorn, but i would never dream of adding to the main article or commenting here without seriously considering all points of view. I would welcome any sourced comments on the lawsuit.i have already agreed that she deserves her own article, given the degree of coverage. I think its important that our language in the talk pages show our ability to have an NPOV despite any personal bias we may have. Its also important to not misrepresent sourced comments and try to make sources say what they dont. thats an endemic problem at WP, people from all sorts of perspectives do it, and its wrong no matter who does it. I hope that we can keep to a minimum undue coverage of any of the sides here. and im sorry for using the word irrational, and apologize for that. that is not civil.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm not Justice Roberts, but then again I never claimed to be, therefore, your comment above which references Roberts is merely weak sarcasm and of course your comment is off the subject and irrelevant. It does not boost your argument in anyway. Now, I want to point out one more time. What I wrote about the underlying lawsuit is NOT, as you seem to imply, merely my opinion. It is fact. Probable cause is not the focus of that lawsuit. Probable cause is a term that comes directly from the Constitution and it applies to government officials, not private citizens. You stated otherwise and you were incorrect and I called you on it. The lawsuit is about a specific law in the State of Maryland and the jurisdiction of Maryland is in the minority on the issue of taping a discussion without consent. That is also fact. It is NOT opinion. I repeat: Your stated the lawsuit was about "probable cause" and it is not, and you are wrong. That is a fact. We will see if the lawsuit is valid or not. As the article is written right now the reader would get the impression that it is an open and shut case for ACORN, but that is NOT true. The real question is whether the ACORN workers had a legitimate expectation of privacy and Giles can argue quite strongly that the ACORN workers did NOT have an expectation of privacy. In the videos it is clear that the door was open. People were coming in and out of the room. Some of the ACORN employees were yelling through the open door to other ACORN workers, etc. Also, the information that Giles released is clearly the topic of a public discussion about public policy and that also diminishes the ACORN employees expectation of privacy. Expectation of privacy and the interpretation of a recently passed law in Maryland will be focus of the lawsuit, not as you incorrectly stated probable cause. You were wrong and I called you on it.--98.196.129.137 (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the words of the Washington Times: Hannah Giles, the young woman who dressed up and posed as a whore in the BigGovernment.com ACORN child prostitution sting videos, is an aspiring investigative reporter and National Journalism Center intern. You can read her Townhall.com bio here. Not familiar with NJC?. . . Actually, I shouldn't say "aspiring," as she's already accomplished something nobody from 60 Minutes, The New York Times, or any other mainstream media thought to do, and that is find a way to expose the dirty truth behind the closed doors of ACORN. She was able to do that because she asked the right questions, unemcumbered by the liberal conventional wisdom that blinds so many Mainstream Media journalists.--98.196.129.137 (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently that's not from the Washington Times... it appeared instead as an editorial in a daily paper called the Examiner, which Wikipedia mentions was initially the subject of some controversy for being delivered free exclusively to white affluent neighborhoods while "majority-black neighborhoods" were not served. Doesn't mean the information is true or false, just worthy to note it's all a matter of perspective when we're talking about an editorial. If you're curious, here is a link to the entry. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct it is the Washington Examiner, my mistake. However, your editorial comment about the distribution of the Examiner is not without error either. The Wikipedia article that you directed editors to did NOT state that majority-black neighborhoods "were not served." That is simply incorrect on your part. It pointed out that they may or not have received distribution and if they did get distribution that distribution might have been light. You misrepresented the comments of the a competing paper to the Examiner, the Washington City Paper. Clearly the The Washington City Paper has a economic interest at stake to deride the reputation of the Examiner since both the City Paper and the Examiner are the two free papers in the D.C. metro area, as opposed to the Post and the Times. Moreover, not only is your comment a misrepresentation of the so-called controversy outlined in the Wikipedia article it very, very far from the point of this particular discussion page--which of course is about whether or not the article on Hannah Giles should stay or go. You did NOT comment on the substance of the quote from the Examiner which is quite straight-forward and speaks directly to the substance of the debate here. That editorial states unequivocally that what Giles did was scoop 60 Minutes and The New York Times and every other mainstream newsroom in the country. I think part of the argument on this page to support the removal of her article is that she is in school, a mere student of journalism. But that is bogus argument. Yes, she is in school and she is young, but she writes articles for the Townhall.com and BigGovernment.com and she is doing original journalism that is beating the holy crap out of the old guys on the block such as 60 Minutes and The New York Times. And her real journalistic work has brought an old corrupt Washington D.C. institution to its knees. That is fact that you choose to ignore. Instead you focused on a bogus complaint by the Washington City Paper, a complaint that really just boils down to the fact that the City Paper is having some of its customers taken by a competitor. Yeah, it is just sour grapes on the City Paper's part and does NOT in anyway diminish the unbelievable accomplishment of Giles who scooped 60 Minutes, et. al. Once again, removing her article would be wrong.--98.196.129.137 (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I did read the editorial; my point was that it's actually an editorial from a newspaper of somewhat lesser stature than the Washington Times, and like all editorials, it's just an opinion. No offense, but I didn't find it convincing in terms of the overall argument being debated on this page.--AzureCitizen (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken. What did not find convincing? That the Washington City Paper is a cheap rag? That's true of course, but it is not the topic of discussion here. What is the topic of discussion is that Hannah Giles brought down ACORN in a way that neither the Washington Post, The New York Times or 60 Minutes did not do. That's a fact. Now, she is being sued by ACORN under a probably unconstitutional law in Maryland--a law that limits free speech--and she is still in the news and will remain in the news.--98.196.129.137 (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Popped on Wiki one last time just to check this page before I head out for five days where I won't have access to the internet. No time to respond in great depth, but essentially my comments near the very top of the thread sum up my take on the issue (please read them if you're interested). I still think that everything that is happening (the video tapings, the release on the internet and the news stories that followed, the acts of Congress and federal entities, the lawsuit, etc) are basically all part of the same event, the "ACORN undercover videos controversy," and that if the article on Ms. Giles only contains a sentence or two of non-notable information (that she is student at X school, majoring in X, doing work for X), then people searching "Hannah Giles" on Wiki should probably get a re-direct to the other article instead until such time there is more notable personal information for her, or there is a second event not a part of the ACORN videos controversy. Otherwise you end up with two articles just duplicating 97% of the same stuff. Just my take on the matter, now I'm out of here, courtesy of the USAR... --AzureCitizen (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commment: The article really needs a picture of Giles. --Milowent (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent a couple of requests to breitbart.com for a free photo but have not heard back. I thought Breitbart was supposed to be web-savvy and enlightened and all that. :( Ronnotel (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. If we're gonna have an article on her, the fact that she's hot is notable. --Milowent (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- User:Ronnotel has it right. Our policies specifically allows exceptions. The intent of the BLP1e was to protect hapless private individuals, who wanted to remain private individuals -- not self-promoters, like Ms Giles. If she had appeared in the video, and had not agreed to a series of interviews with high-profile commentators I would agree she wouldn't merit coverage here. But she did appear. Her views, motives, etc, are in the public arena. Deleting this article would be a disservice to readers. Some of us may not want to reward self-promoters. But I think that should be irrelevant. Self-promoters who fail to make themselves public figures we should, of course, continue to ignore. Self-promoters who succeed, we should cover, in a non-sensational manner that complies with our policies on neutrality, verifiability and other key policies. Geo Swan (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WRT merging -- what those with an urge to merge overlook is how that erodes the utility of our watchlists. The reader who wants to know when something significant has triggered a change to the Acorn article, but is bored with additional info on Ms Giles, or additional suggestions we really need hot pictures of her, can put the Acorn article on their watchlist, and leave the Hannah Giles article off. And vice versa for her fans and detractors. This would not be possible after a merge, and I consider that a strong argument against a merge. Geo Swan (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - To the point of watching the two pages, couldn't the same be said for many articles that could be split up? The fact of the matter is that this article simply does not pass WP:BLP1E, which states "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Giles is someone who most certainly will remain low profile after her one event dies down, unless she is involved in another event of significance, in which case a Wikipedia page for her should exist.--Henry talk 21:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure how she can be low profile after this. She's being sued by ACORN for $5 million in a case that's guaranteed to generate headlines. Even without the lawsuit, I doubt she would fade into the background. Ronnotel (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. SNOW applies here... Tone 18:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli theft of Arab cuisine

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

The article as stands isn't NPOV; with a title like that I'm not sure it's likely to become so. The synthesis of the article reads like original research. Pseudomonas_(talk) 16:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR with a side dish of WP:SOAP. Favonian (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Pseudomonas, can you please point out exact what is not npov and what is OR, and I will try to correct it. Its a serious subject and I don't think it should be deleted. Please edit the article yourself if there is something with it that is not following wikiepdia rules. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Title itself is tendentious and soapboxing, content is defamatory, slandering living persons ("Israel and the Israeli people"), in potential violation of WP:BLP restrictions. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The title is intrinsically un-neutral. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — the whole thing is biased and quite silly. ... discospinster _talk 17:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just about everything in this article is WP:POV and WP:SOAP. While assuming good faith, the creator of this article has had a contentious relationship[46] with a number of articles that mention Israel. --Nsaum75 (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, based on the title of the page there is no way this article can appear unbiased. While good faith is assumed, in my opinion the article violates WP:POV in its very nature. --mwilso24 (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is Lazy Yoga ?

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

More of a how-to page than anything else; somewhat promotional; and no evidence that this is a notable topic. Tagged for speedy under A7, but that really doesn't fit here. Nyttend (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A how to page. Joe Chill (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure I'd even go as far as calling this chatty couple of paragraphs a how-to page. It's not clear what the author wants to convey, but it doesn't seem to meet notability. Lissajous (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Lazy yoga," "lazy man's yoga," "yoga for lazy people," &c. seem to refer most often to Nuad Bo Rarn, which is apparently just Thai for "traditional massage." This article from Mahidol University in Thailand discusses Nuad Bo Rarn, and here's a link to an abstract about Thai massage that came up as a search result. Most of the other hits in Google books and Google scholar were either in languages I couldn't read, or from woo-woo alternative healing (so they seemed to me) books, websites, and journals. Adding the words "lazy" and "yoga" to "Nuad Bo Rarn" in both Books and Scholar reduced my hits to zero. The terms coexist on the standard-issue Wierd Wild Web, but as a pitchline on practitioners' websites, not a true AKA, in my opinion. The rest of the article's content looks to be original research by synthesis/conjecture. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just original research. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's just a how to page (if even that). It doesn't show how lazy yoga is even a significant topic. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Central European Diabetes Association

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

I was unable to find non-trivial coverage in independent sources about this organisation. Biruitorul ^Talk 16:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For an international scientific/medical organization which has met for many years, it is surprising that I cannot find them mentioned more than once at Google Books or Google Scholar. Having several names in different languages might mean that they show up under one of the names but not the ones I tried. The article is largely a cut and paste from their website, and would need stubbing or rewriting in any event, but some source other than their website is needed to satisfy WP:notability. Subject to change if someone can find multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 16:43, 25 September 2009 (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) 00:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I suspect that the lack of Ghits is because any WP:RS on the subject will be in German or other Central European languages, not English. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:BURDEN - reliable sources actually have to be presented, and speculation that they might exist is not a valid substitute for including those sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and I searched by "Zentraleuropäischen Diabetesgesellschaft" also, nothing much. Abductive (reasoning) 07:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The only source I could find (by searching for lots of permutations of names and abbreviations in both English and German) that may be more than a passing mention, or a citation to one of this organisation's symposia, is this article in a peer-reviewed journal, but I don't have access to the full text. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Edison and Phil Bridger. Surprising, though. GlassCobra 16:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, G3 by Tnxman307. Blueboy 96 16:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution-

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

Contents entirely unencyclopedic, and name of article downright disruptive. An editor other than the original author removed speedy deletion nomination for some reason. Move for a speedy delete. Favonian (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because evolution is an atheistic lie and Wikipedia isn't supposed to promote any religion or lack thereof. --Silicon-28 (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because evolution is inherently false; a myth created by the mainstrain media to destroy the Christian belief system. Drew Underwood (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete debate of users should take place on talk page of evolution. page already exist. no sources. WP:OR

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonoke Medical Software

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

Promotional article for not very notable company. Rd232 ^talk 16:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nomination, clear case ukexpat (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability for this company. The sources provided in the article aren't reliable sources for the purpose of establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Galvan

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

Unreferenced article for marginally notable dancer. Have tried to redirect to Dance on Sunset, but article keeps being recreated by unregistered accounts. Some GHIT activity, but appears to be lacking substance. Some local, hometown, GNEWS hits. ttonyb (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt per nom. UltraMagnus (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - strong reek of WP:VSCA. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 05:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strap trap

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

No references to establish notability. Originator probably WP:COI Derek Andrews (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. UltraMagnus (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2009 (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) 00:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this product. Joe Chill (talk) 01:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even within the questionably-notable content area of sewing notions I can find no evidence this product is prominent, historically significant, or newsworthy. I would be interested though purely as a matter of curiousity in seeing some RS for the article's claim of "a growing readinesss for women to discuss this world wide annoying problem." Ben Kidwell (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neusport F.C. Green 98'

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Neusport F.C. Green 98'

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

This article does not establish the notability of the particular soccer team. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 15:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable soccer team, hasn't played at a high enough level to merit having an article about it. Giant Snowman 08:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why should this even need an AfD? No references, no citation on the highly POV claim to notability, which is contradicted by the stats suggesting they have only ever won 2 matches, and apparently only an U11 team to report fixtures for. Get out of here. Kevin McE (talk) 10:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the "98" in the title refers to the birthdate of players and therefore signifies that this article is specifically about the under-11 team, which only reinforces how non-notable it is..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the article says "U11/12". Giant Snowman 11:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable youth team Spiderone 06:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. GlassCobra 14:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Goldman (utopian)

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

Contested PROD. Notability issues, only sources from local area GlassCobra 15:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well sourced and notable. If Stelton had an article that would be a good merge target, but it's been incorporated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is very confusing. Samuel Goldman (utopian) is a redirect to Fellowship Farm Cooperative Association. What has been proposed for deletion here? The redirect or the article the name redirects to? I have a hard time believing it is the latter because that article is clearly well enough sourced to survive any challenge, and surely it should have been nominated under its own name. If it is the former shouldn't the nomination say that it is an effort to delete a redirect to avoid confusion? Has someone played games here and changed article names while the deletion is being discussed? Either the editor who nominated this for deletion or one of the editors who has worked on the page, or both should clarify what is happening here. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not checking in on this sooner. It appears that the creator of the article has gone around this process and moved the article to a new title and added sources, effectively rendering this AfD moot (though also changing the focus of the article considerably). I'll give this more consideration shortly, but I would like to state for the record that I was given no notification about the changes to the article, nor offered any chance to collaborate on improvements. GlassCobra 20:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but you may want to withdraw this nomination as what is there now seems well sourced. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cusgarne Community Primary School

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

The article is extremely short and doesn't convince a person why it is important to keep listed. It doesn't really provide any information to one. Lourie Pieterse 14:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Appears to be a typical elementary school, which we typically merge to an article on the school district. Wikipedia is not a directory. Fails notability. Edison (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 17:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with nominator and Edison that our rules won't accommodate an article about an elementary or middle school that doesn't meet WP:N. On the other hand, we have no article about the community of Cusgarne. My suggestion to the author is to rename this "Cusgarne" and write about the community, including the school. Mandsford (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rework page as suggested by Mandsford. This is a village with a number of historic references and we certainly need a page on it. TerriersFan (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
make article on the town,and put the info there as proposed. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
convert to needed article on municipality as proposed. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the suggestion by User:Mandsford. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to the newly-created Cusgarne where I have merged the content. Cunard (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Despite extended discussion, only two credible users (that are not clearly meatpuppets or the like) came out and argued for a Keep. The result withstanding, all users here are reminded that the WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL policies are mandatory throughout the project, including here at AFD. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pain Hertz

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)

Per WP:MUSIC, this article has absolutely no case for notability. No real sources- just self-published material and vendor sites (amazon, etc). King Öomie 14:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- WP:Music None of there albums are cited or even have the record label. The sources are self published and they are non notable.--SKATER ^Speak. 16:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What would be involved in "citing" the albums? Vendor sites selling them? Luminifer (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - They have at least two notable members for other reasons - this fits criterion #6 is Wikipedia:Notability (music) (Carmine Guida is a famous instructor/musician, Nick Wolven is a published science fiction author, Michael Kaplan is now working with Joe Bergamini and Jimmy Wilgus of 4Front, and Lozupone's music has been used in audio studies). They may fit #1 and #5 (although I remember seeing something about how they are against record labels as a political position - I'll have to find a source for that. Maybe it was boingboing.) A lot of the references are actual real sources - I see only one vendor site source actually. Am I missing something? However, I think the strongest claim for notability is #6. Luminifer (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (edit conflict)(edit conflict) Though the language in #6 is ambiguous, I'm inclined to interpret 'notable musician' to mean 'notable as a musician', which Wolven certainly doesn't meet- he's an author. A gig band composed of Tony Stewart and Kevin James would fail this similarly, unless they fit one of the other criteria. The 4Front article is entirely without sources to support ITS notability (unless you count the circular notability from Pain Hertz itself), which makes me unsure about Kaplan's notability as well. --King Öomie 17:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It also mentions independant notability, which I believe in this case eliminates notability-by-association of simply being in a notable band (so Stone Sour wouldn't warrant an article on 6# alone, despite the inclusion of Jim Root and Corey Taylor). Again, this is open for interpretation, as it's rather ambiguous. --King Öomie 17:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I don't agree with your interpretation there. In fact, I believe the reason for that clause is as follows: if two members have their own wiki pages, it is unclear where to put the information for the band. For this reason, it makes sense to create a single place for that information to go - otherwise, we could always merge this with one of the articles - but which one? Does that make any sense? (The 4Front page does kind of stink - Joe Bergamini is the most notable member there, and HIS notability is established a little better - but not much - on his article... but in that case I think it's just a poor article - this guy's pretty famous, at least in the music scene he's involved in). Luminifer (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, having a Wiki article doesn't really fix notability. I'm kind of approaching this from the standpoint of properly referencing and dimensioning an engineering drawing. I'm fairly confident in my interpretation of that language (and again, I'm referring only to #6). Perhaps I should open a discussion at WP:VPP. --King Öomie 17:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having a wiki article doesn't fix notability, but it does present the logistical problem of where to put this information, if not here... (putting aside other concerns on notability for the moment) Luminifer (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, thought I completely forgot to actually say it, what I meant was, "I'm not sure all of the people involved here meet the criteria to have articles themselves", which may result in the multiple-locations issue being moot. --King Öomie 18:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, are you arguing against the interpretation of item #6, or are you actually questioning the notability of 4Front, Joe Bergamini, etc? Luminifer (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure anymore @_@ --King Öomie 07:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, would you mind stating the basis of your claim that this doesn't, at the very least, satisfy point #6 at WP:MUSIC? Are you claiming that the associated acts are not notable, or is it because one of them is notable, but not for being a musician (despite the wording in the policy not stating that explicitly). Again, my belief is that point #6 is there so that the information is not duplicated across numerous articles, leading to serious maintenance issues. This would apply regardless of the reasons for the subjects' notability. Luminifer (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Meh" and yes. #6 doesn't really state anything explicitly- it uses a number of adjectives that appear unnecessary if 'famous for being a musician' isn't a requirement. And I'm reasonable sure 1-12 are there because Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --King Öomie 15:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. It has two independant and distinct phrases, describing the two separate cases it applies to. (1) "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians" (the one I say applies here), and (2) "is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles" (this IS meant to apply, I imagine, to a supergroup setting, where members of notable bands form a band that is not yet notable in its own right). Luminifer (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first part is the supergroup part, I'd venture. The second part I believe refers to solo projects of already notable musicians. And again, I'm referring to the language used, "independently notable". --King Öomie 15:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That language applies here perfectly - all of these members are notable for their works independent of Pain Hertz. How is that not clear? Luminifer (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have a circular reference issue. If a member of 4Front is notable in part due to his work with Pain Hertz, but Pain Hertz is notable due in part to that member's work with 4Front... I'm saying that the term "Independent nobility" is intended to avoid this. I might need a graph. --King Öomie 16:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how that would be a problem, but it simply isn't the case. I stated at the beginning here, Carmine Guida is a noted instructor and musician, who's actually very famous in his circles and has been the subject of numerous print articles. Nick Wolven likewise is a semi-famous author - clearly this has nothing to do with Pain Hertz. 4 Front I don't know much about, but if you look at Joe Bergamini's page (the founder of 4 Front), this guy has been around - he's involved with the Movin' Out Billy Joel musical, has worked with Bumblefoot of Guns n Roses, is the subject of print articles... None of this has to do with Pain Hertz.. Luminifer (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this is getting a lawyery for my taste (read: really don't want to make that graph). I will concede the point that they just might pass #6, but I'd prefer to not close this AFD while there are existing Delete votes. --King Öomie 16:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you make the graph, you'll find no circular notability - all of these people are _independently_ notable. Luminifer (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but was there a reason to add this here? This page isn't exactly flooding with SPAs. If this is going to be boilerplate, perhaps it should be in the AFD header template by default. --King Öomie 18:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was added because you sent a message to a user which seemed to be asking them to take part in the discussion because you knew they would support your side of the debate, although this is not strictly against policy, I reserve the right to add Not a Ballot if I see necessary, as could anyone, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 06:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some light sleuthing likely would have revealed that he asked me to put the article up for AFD (if I felt there was a case for it). I linked him the created report in the interest of him not having to lurk my contribs page. I don't mind if the template stays, I just didn't appreciate the implication. --King Öomie 07:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify I did indeed ask Sir King's opinion on the notability of the subject. He looked at t and felt it was worthy of this AfD and, as he should, gave me to link to show me his reponse to my query. The boilerplate above is foolish and un-req'd. As for the AfD, Sir King put his reasons in the opening nomination statement and, after reading his lead-in, I must say I concur that the page is a...

delete non-notable subject. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No worries, thanks for explaining that Kingoomieiii, template removed, however, Wiki libs, it would be appreciated if you wouldn't refer to my actions as "foolish", I mean; it looked a bit odd from my side! Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 14:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nah Libs, it wasn't 'foolish'. It's common to check an AFD-filer's contribs to make sure they're not canvassing. If I'd prefaced my post on your page with "per your request", it wouldn't have been an issue. --King Öomie 13:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep (edit conflict)(edit conflict) I've seen this band several times live, and was one of many, many people at their shows. I would presume that it lends some credence to their claims of notability, not withstanding some of their original interpretations of mash-ups (two songs, same chord progression, performed simultaneously) which they've become quite well known and liked for. It strikes me as clear evidence of 7, in addition to 6, especially considering what the ex-keyboardist Michael Kaplan has gone on to do since his departure from the band. --amalthya (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)— amalthya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

King (who tagged this here), that seems to be true enough. However, I thought this was "not a ballot", so if they have a valid thing to say, it should not matter if they haven't done much on here before, and if they don't, then even if they were a major contributor, it would not matter... or am I missing something about "not a ballot"? Luminifer (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to get defensive. 'Not a ballot' is not a free pass for SPAs (in fact, nothing is). Three good arguments from three accounts pull more weight than the same three from one account. You'll notice I tossed the standard template up there for a user who's SECOND EDIT is to an RFA- I didn't strike it, I didn't demand a CU. I just tagged it. --King Öomie 15:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not getting defensive, I was genuinely asking. Their post isn't all that helpful anyway in that it's full of anecdotal stuff and a light claim to WP:MUSIC policies. Luminifer (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A CU would not be completely out-of-order here though. It is an odd-duck edit from a dormant account. They tend to have a meaty odour to them. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, checkuser isn't magic, it needs something to check against. --King Öomie 15:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was birth'd by an IP. The check would be between the 'potential pork', that mother IP and any other accounts that were created from that IP. I think the convo is going off-topic. Chat should stick to the merits of article subject and its keepability. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - Seems like a case is made for meeting requirement 6 WP:MUSIC; the ambiguity of the claims made could go either way, at least, enough to justify that this one stick around for awhile. Mozucat (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm? another odd duck. King... strange thing are afoot. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Odd duck"? Are you referring to me? Jeez, and people wonder why Wikipedia participation is waning. Forgive me if I was mistaken, but I thought that this was an open forum, not an old boy's club. Mozucat (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Libs, your lack of WP:AGF and personal attacks (against both Mozucat and, possibly, Spitfire) are a little surprising, considering the fact that everyone here so far has WP:AGF regarding your conversation here - which could be seen as a form of light pre-nomination Wikipedia:Canvassing for biased votestacking (as Spitfire was wary of above), considering the language used in your message (VERY non-neutral) as well as the fact that all of the delete votes cast so far come from people involved in that conversation. Luminifer (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skater I presume has my page watchlisted, and involved himself without either of us asking him (not that there's a problem with that). If you have a specific issue with either of our behavior, I suggest you do something about it, rather than pointing to it to attempt to make your case whenever someone votes delete. So far we have your Keep, and two others from very new accounts. Mozucat appears to be a new account from an experienced user (User:Mozucat/workshops), but the other is an obvious SPA. And by the way, Libs didn't ask me to come here and vote Delete. He asked me to make my own judgement, as he's done in the past- and in the past, I've disagreed with his vote. --King Öomie 14:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "do something about it" because so far, I was WP:AGF. Canvassing does not require that you ask an editor to get involved - it simply involves posting it in forums in which a biased outcome is expected, or with non-neutral language - which COULD be applied here. I am not sure what I would do about it in any case. Regarding your claim that I dispute every delete vote - this in fact my first comment on the matter (it was Spitfire who took issue before), and this is in response to libs' personal attacks on a user and lack of WP:AGF. In fact, the opposite is the case here - every single keep vote is being challenged as being from an SPA. As I said, so far, I have been trying to WP:AGF. Luminifer (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are questionable because they are 'out-of-the-blue' from accounts which have contributed nothing. Look through the entire AfD listing for every subject matter... votes are questioned all the time when they come from editors who have never done anything before. You can smell the meat on this one from a mile away. Hey King do you want a similarity?... Luminifer is a member of a band called Pain Hertz. Mozocat has posted here about the band 'Brooklyn band, Pain Hertz, has done this great 'mash-up' cover of Danzig's Mother and Michael Jackson" ... And Mozocat is linked as a "friend" of Luminifer on pretty much all of his LastFM profiles. AND... surprise, surprise... Luminifer is listed as a friend on Mozucat's Last.FM profile pages.links galore Ooo Ooo that smell... ? The Real Libs-speak politely 15:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha. Very interesting, but I think you are reading too much into the closed network that is underground New York City music, and the internet... Luminifer (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amalthya is as well. Suddenly allegations of canvassing ring hollow. --King Öomie 15:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure who you expect to be commenting on a page besides people who are very familiar with the band (see my complain below). Regardless I've now figured out how to get outside input so we should see what happens from here. Luminifer (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely need outside input, as the personal attacks have gotten out of hand. Never mind that none of the standard protocols at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion were followed when listing this AfD, such as "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history" and "Place a notification on significant pages that link to your nomination, to enable those with related knowledge to participate in the debate.". Luminifer (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No no no, don't start backpedaling into MY faults here (you appear to have found the AFD just fine). You brought your personal friends into this after accusing me of votestacking. They're FANS OF THE BAND- did you not expect them to vote keep? --King Öomie 15:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is only half of what was not done in this case - and in fact it wasn't the 'required' half. Maybe you assumed (rightfully) that I would find it, but it still is apparently not "civil". As I'm a major editor of this article, of course I am going to vote keep, so that is not neutral either. You did none of the steps required to get outside input - and I was unaware of these steps until I did some reading recently, thanks to Spitfire's notice above. Also, please don't assume people are my friends because they added me on some social networking site - I will accept anyone's add. Finally, I never accused you of votestacking - you have been quite reasonable in most regards. I suggesting that Libs' actions could be perceived as possibly unintentional votestacking. Luminifer (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who do I expect to comment? I don't know, maybe someone who can possibly vote neutrally. Someone who will read the article with reference to the notability guidelines, check the sources, all that good stuff. Someone not invited here because they were a fan. --King Öomie 15:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like the implications there. If you do not properly notify the people who can vote "neutrally" (as I've just done and as you should have done when you created this AfD), the only people who will be voting are those who happen upon the page on their own (typically fans) -- and the people who read YOUR talk page (and the person who asked you to nominate it, thus guaranteeing two "votes" - but again, this is not a ballot, right?). Hopefully now this will be remedied. Luminifer (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In the interest of WP:OUTING, I won't be posting google searches here, but it's generally recommended that you be open with your conflict of interest or involvement, lest users feel deceived when it's discovered. --King Öomie 15:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well hey, whaddya know. --King Öomie 15:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what you may think, this should be judged on its merits according to WP:MUSIC, and is not a ballot, so the admin will have to decide. I do not appreciate the invasions of privacy so I may stay out of things from this point on. Luminifer (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If posting a link to a section of this website that you wrote is an invasion of privacy, I don't know what to tell you. And don't worry, at this point I am intimately aware that this isn't a ballot. --King Öomie 15:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to libs posting links that may or may not have been to me on social networking sites. I believe that comes close to WP:OUTING, regardless of whether or not it's actually me (as described in the policy). If that's what's going to be going on here, then I have had enough. Luminifer (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A google search revealed that you had prior contact with two SPAs that appeared to support an AFD that you're vested in. This was in no way linked to your identity. --King Öomie 16:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links were posted to actual profile pages, again who may or may not be me WP:OUTING specifically says not to acknowledge it), associating similar names to the names involved here, which is not conclusive but is still a sketchy thing to post. I am not saying it is WP:OUTING exactly, but it makes me uncomfortable enough that such things are being posted here. As libs themselves stated, this is all distracting from the actual discussion of notability - but libs continues to post such things anyway. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest does not affect this discussion, as it is based only on the actual notability as discussed. Arguments can be made, but not proven, for canvassing on either side, but this is not a ballot, as we keep saying. This needs to be decided on the notability alone. Luminifer (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm done with this. The impropriety on both sides was minor. If you really want to, a ~~checkuser~~ can blank out all revisions that contained that link. It's really just a Google result page, which happened to link to a profile page. As far as I can tell, Libs only posted it here. Do whatever you feel you need to do. --King Öomie 16:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oversight, I mean. Wow. That only went uncorrected for five and half hours. --King Öomie 21:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Luminifer
Delete Non-notable NYC band (1 amongst millions) fails all relevant inclusion criteria. L0b0t (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please explain how it fails point #6 at WP:MUSIC?

There is nothing significant about these particular people forming a band. The members are insufficiently notable to make the band notable merely by association. Triplestop x3 22:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who, exactly, are the "two or more independently notable musicians" in the band? Also note that passing one of the criteria at WP:MUSIC does guarantee notability, it says right at the top of the criteria, that "A musician...may be notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" (emphasis mine). Subject of article still has insufficient coverage in reliable sources. L0b0t (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above (in all that heated text), (Carmine Guida is a famous instructor/musician, Nick Wolven is a published science fiction author, Michael Kaplan is now working with Joe Bergamini and Jimmy Wilgus of 4Front... Luminifer (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at all those articles, I have to say all of them should go to AfD, none of those musicians or authors or bands meet the inclusion criteria at Wikipedia. L0b0t (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable band. Absolutely zero significant coverage in reliable sources. Triplestop x3 20:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please explain how it fails point #6 at WP:MUSIC?

There is nothing significant about these particular people forming a band. The members are insufficiently notable to make the band notable merely by association. Triplestop x3 22:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no significant coverage in reliable sources. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. Luminifer, a band MAY be notable when it passes one of the points at WP:MUSIC, it is however not a guarantee that it IS notable when it passes them. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This may be true, but why is point #6 there if it needs reliable sources? There are reliable sources on the band members' wiki pages - in fact, Carmine Guida was AfD'ed and survived it. If this page does get deleted, if anything, it needs to be merged with one of the band members' pages. My interpretation (which is apparently up for debate) of point #6 was that it was there to avoid copying the same material across multiple band members' articles. Luminifer (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Those are two separate things. Indeed, it does not need to be duplicated, and when the information is somewhere else, then this band may be notable. However, it does not get any independent references in reliable sources. The notability of (some of) the members does not necessarily mean that the band is notable, that is an independent discussion, and in my feeling, seeing all the blogspots and bloggers-references, this one does not have that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)][reply]
      - Well, my point is, if we have to merge this information (such as discography, if nothing else), where do we put it? That information is verifiable, at least via amazon. Luminifer (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - P.S., Carmine Guida already mentions that he also performed with Pain Hertz (though that statement is also unreferenced!!). Nothing to merge here, however, reliably sourcing this article may help. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - There seems to be a reference to archive.org which features him on a recording. Misspelled, I think. Luminifer (talk) 21:34, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Not sure if that is a reliable source.... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I thought that album liner notes and their digital equivelant were reliable sources. Luminifer (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Self published sources, sure, but there are still no independent reliable sources in addition to them, and I start to suspect that there are none, seen how strongly you defend these three pages of marginal to no notability (in terms of Wikipedia-notability) based on these blog sources. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no significant coverage in reliable sources. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are print sources buried in amongst the other sources. Luminifer (talk) 22:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where? The reference tags do allow for referencing without having a working external link ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is one for the L magazine, for instance. Luminifer (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Wolven Triplestop x3 23:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting, but will not resolve in time for this debate to finish. Should we have an extension, go with Michael Kaplan being notable (kind of a weak argument), or merge with Carmine Guida? Luminifer (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is already there .... unreferenced, and as far as I can see, really independent references are not available. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment This isn't relevant to the discussion of notability, but to the discussions regarding accusations of canvassing on my part. At the Pain Hertz myspace page there was apparently an announcement via bulletin, followed by a blog entry a few days later [47]. This could account for the increased visibility. It also contains information not yet incorporated into the article, so who knows. Luminifer (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question-Luminifer has your band ever opened for anyone of significance for an an extended tour? An extended tour with a notable act would help improve notability. A one shot deal as a support act means nothing. But if you and your band toured for an extended period with a notable act it would help. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I resent the implications there. Regardless of your unfounded suspicions regarding my identity, you are not supposed to discuss who you think I am, or might be, in compliance with WP:OUTING. Please refrain from attempting to reveal you who think I am in a public forum, as this is grossly against policy. Luminifer (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase Wiki Libs' question: Luminifer has the band ever opened for anyone of significance for an an extended tour? An extended tour with a notable act would help improve notability. A one shot deal as a support act means nothing. But if the band toured for an extended period with a notable act it would help. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. I'm not the expert on this band, which is why I created their page (and which is why I created the 100+ pages I have created on here). Luminifer (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You created the page because you are not the expert on the band .. that does not make any sense. However, whether you are an expert or not, you seem to be the most knowledgeable (as you created the page), and are probably of all wiki-editors, you are an 'expert' on this band (again, you did quite some research finding all the references that you did find). I am hence surprised that you did not find any which do satisfy our hunger for independent reliable sources, but found only the dependent or unreliable ones. I hope you can find editors who can help us further, because we are not getting anywhere. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being so civil in this matter - considering the reactions that occurred above (even down to false accusations of SPA's for User:Mozucat, I really appreciate it. However, I couldn't find anything, and I cleaned out my print sources, so it may be that there aren't enough sources. I created it under the presumption that point 6 in WP:MUSIC was justification for it; if it's not, so be it. Due to the attempts at WP:OUTING and privacy attacks involved here (regardless of whether correct, they are incredibly unsettling), I'll be leaving wikipedia anyway, so if no one else finds sources, I guess that's it. Thanks for your time! Luminifer (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment "Because of our past problems, opinions offered by new or anonymous users are often met with suspicion and may be discounted during the closing process. This decision is made at the discretion of the closing admin after considering the contribution history and pattern of comments. In practice, civil comments and logical arguments are often given the benefit of doubt while hostile comments are presumed to be bad-faith. Please note that verifiable facts and evidence are welcome from anybody and will be considered during the closing process." Wikipedia:Guide to deletion .. please don't respond to this comment, it's just a quotation. Luminifer (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- comment - it's well-researched articles getting deleted that discourages newcomers (or anyone) from creating articles at all. this is (was, considering that I'm just about done here considering the personal attacks and privacy violations that this AfD caused) why I created so many new articles (over 100) - and almost all of them so far have stayed, and it's a great joy when someone who _actually_ knows about the subject comes along and adds something. I guess that's about all I have left to say before I'm done with this. Luminifer (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Maybe true, Liminifer, and that is sometimes bitey, but, and I am sure that you understand that as well, the articles may be well researched, and be made by newcomers, but things still have to pass a certain level. I mean, e.g. many people who have finished a university (exact sciences) have one or two papers on their name, quite some high-school students have played in a band during their study, and many people have helped out in a local charity shop, and those three people have their local notability. But that does not mean that some of my friends, or the woman where one of my friends last week bought a second hand skirt are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Since we are here at AfD, this is a border-case (it is sourced, there is quite some, it actually passes a rule in WP:MUSIC), and we would only need a bit more). Deletion does not have to be the end of it, it can still be either undeleted afterwards, or started fresh when such sources do appear or are found. You could even request for it to be userfied. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Having articles deleted is discouraging" is an entirely invalid argument. This isn't the place to overthrow the notability guidelines. --King Öomie 13:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Absolutely. To use a phrase KingOomie likes to when trying to state something that's not exactly in the right context: "Just saying".
        Ugh. I said that once. Hardly grounds for stating its something I 'like to say'. --King Öomie 14:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable band, no reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Vukovic (footballer)

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

Doesn't play for a professional team and hasn't played at senior international level Spiderone 16:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 16:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 17:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I vote for keeping him for now. His been solid in his club FK Laktaši, and the 7 caps for Canada U-20 men's national soccer team make his possible choice for senior team in some neer future. Laktaši is a "new-rich" Bosnian-Serb club that dropped to Second Bosnian League this season. They should come back to First league, if not, he may move somwere else. Maybe wait to see? FkpCascais (talk) 03:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry but it's WP:CRYSTAL to assume that he'll play for Canada and that he'll go back to the First league which isn't even professional anyway. Spiderone 08:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry, I was wrong, his club, FK Laktaši is in the Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina. FkpCascais (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - League not fully professional. GauchoDude (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - regardless of the deeply flawed WP:ATHLETE, a 20-year-old kid who kicks a ball around for a living doesn't deserve a berth in an encyclopedia - unless, per WP:BIO, he is the subject of "published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" - manifestly not the case here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the comments made by Biruitorul above. This person is not notable enough for inclusion based on the information currently available. --mwilso24 (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable, no article in the language of his country, no international or serious professional record New seeker (talk) 09:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bella McFarland

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

Non-notable author lacking any GNEWS and with no GHITS of substance. Appears to fails WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2009 (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) 00:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete It is passing strange to find a published author with no reviews popping in Gnews whatsoever, but this one appears to have managed it. Her books are carried in Worldcat and some number of public libraries, however, so I really do find it strange that the sources aren't materializing. Ray^Talk 13:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friends @ Five

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

Local newscast. Um, that's it. It's a local newscast. Not encyclopaedic. Not notable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. UltraMagnus (talk) 14:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what's wrong with an article on this? Fellow people that watch the show can find it informative. It's not just "local", since it is simulcast on the web. Many of the viewers are either military or have military spouses and use it to keep up on local news when they are stationed elsewhere. Shaw AFB is located less than 40 miles away from the news station. BlueChainsawMan (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Little to no coverage, fails to meet the general notability guideline. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, Today in L.A. is notable, non-local, and encyclopaedic? I've never heard of it. BlueChainsawMan (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The regional Emmy made me step back and ask myself if that award made this show notable, I don't think so. Without additional coverage in reliable sources the regional Emmy just isn't enough. The existance of an article of a similar type of program in a different market does not have anything to do with this article. Just because that article exists doesn't mean this one should. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 18:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what would make it more reliable? Contact with an anchor? So an innovative concept that has actually won an award for such isn't enough? BlueChainsawMan (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To show that the show is notable, find significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You might also be interested in an essay that has been written about TV programming. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 20:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable newscast. Bfigura ^(talk) 21:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fallen: 2012

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

Other than the single reference in the article, I cannot find this film's existance online. The single reference being used is trivial in passing, and is used throughout the article to give it undue weight (the reference is about a birth of a white buffalo which is how I found this page). This film is not even listed in the IMDB. The author's only edits are to the article, and adding the article to a list of other 2012 doomsday prophecy films. And this in particular just appears to be an indie film trying to cash in on the 2012 phenomenon.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If it isn't even notable enough to fit on IMDB then it really fails the WP:Notable test now, doesn't it?--WngLdr34 (talk) 13:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with WngLdr34, if this "movie" doesn't make IMDB it in most called fails for notability. --mwilso24 (^Talk/_Contrib) 18:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as currently unsupportable. No information exists yet in reliable sources. The production company itself only has a myspace page [48] and a Linkedin profile [49] where they refer to themselves as "up and coming". Not enough... way not enough. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thukalamkuzhiyil

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

Contested PROD. A local family with no evidence of notability Salih (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is really a local issue here, and it should be deleted for Notability. --WngLdr34 (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 14:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a local family with no real notability. This is part of a series of such articles, many of which have been deleted by PROD and AfD over the past month. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 14:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Would need sources to have any chance; I can't find any. --Milowent (talk) 14:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Edison (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no existance reason. Geschichte (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could potentially be notable if there were reliable sources, but there don't seem to be any. Bfigura ^(talk) 21:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - according to my Internet searches, there is no evidence this surname even exists. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maura Murray

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E. She's known only for being missing. Coverage is local also. So she's limited to local notability. Also fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Lara 12:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Page has been moved to: Disappearance of Maura Murray - --Cyclopia (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - There is some media coverage, over time, which would make me err on the side of keep. However it seems to fall within BLP1E pretty well, and her case is not unusual or discussed enough to put it above the radar.Keep and rename as per sources brought by user Fences&Windows below seem effectively enough for the article to be kept. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: AFD box not yet on page. Also, related AFD (i.e., a missing person is almost always notable for only 1 event...going missing): Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pamela_Pendley_Biggers --Milowent (talk) 14:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually assuming my maths skills haven't yet deserted me, the consensus forming at that AfD shows nothing of the sort. The fact that your opinion in it was that she was notable is another thing entirely. Ironholds (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Media coverage is not enough to pull it outside of WP:BLP1E or, for that matter, WP:NOT#NEWS. Ironholds (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A missing persons case. Per WP:BLP1E. I feel great sympathy for her, her family and friends, but that is not enough reason to have an encyclopedia article, as matters stand now. Edison (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing administrator When starting this discussion Lara failed to tag the article with the AfD template. I have since done so, but the debate may need to be kept open for some additional time. Finally, I concur with the nomination. Delete. Limited coverage and limited notability. AniMate^draw 22:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically TW failed. >_> Lara 23:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Twinkle. So helpful... until it is not. Still, delete per NOTNEWS. AniMate^draw 06:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Disappearance of Maura Murray. This is not a flash-in-the-pan case. ABC News just covered this case four days ago:[50] As for it being apparently run-of-the-mill, the facts of the case are certainly mysterious - she was apparently in a car crash, but then immediately disappeared without trace. That's not your average missing person. It's been covered by ABC News before,[51][52] and in the Boston Globe many many times,[53][54][55][56] which isn't your average local newspaper. Associated Press picked up the story earlier this year:[57], Fox News' Crime Time:[58], Nancy Grace on CNN:[59], another report on CNN:[60], even WorldNetDaily have covered it:[http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49328] Her's was one of two cases covered in a 20/20 episode, Missing Coeds,[61] and there are scores of examples of local news coverage. Fences&Windows 23:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making me notice. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Responding here from your comment on my talk page. I still believe this fails NOTNEWS as I don't see any historical notability here. If you were to write these sources into a retitled article, I'd be less-inclined to argue for a deletion. Lara 00:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Lara on the necessity of a new title. I just moved the page to Disappearance of Maura Murray. Hope not to have been too bold. --Cyclopia (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lara is interpreting NOTNEWS too widely here. NOTNEWS says "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article", and "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information", but neither of those applies here. The case definitely meets the WP:GNG, as it has been covered indepth in multiple reliable secondary sources. The coverage is national and ongoing, so it meets the criteria for notability of criminal acts, which covers disappearances where the police suspect a criminal act: Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Notability of criminal acts. I certainly will write the sources I found into the article tomorrow; I regret not sourcing it properly before. Fences&Windows 00:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Dont Know Keep i would argue that this fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E but the girl who was killed at the red sox rally thing after the world series in 04 has or had her own page for just being killed but if you could rework this article Into The Dissaperance of Maura Murrey then Keep but jenna is right its not your average missing person a car crash and never seen again? AKWARD Big Padres Dude 00:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I note that the article has been moved, however that fails to address the fact that this still fails WP:BLP1E as a bio, or WP:NOTNEWS as an article on the disappearance. I do not see any lasting significance here. Kevin (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The news routinely reports on young, missing females. Usually white. This is not historical. Or interesting. Her CDs were left in her car along with a book? Do tell :P Law_{type! snype?} 04:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Interesting" and "historical" are just your opinions and interestigness is not an objective criteria. I don't find it interesting either, but the media thought otherwise. BLP1E does not apply since the rename -we're talking of the event. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind that her family and friends will read this discussion, please have more respect. Fences&Windows 17:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails BLP1E and NOTNEWS. No special claim to notability, and not enough coverage. — Jake Wartenberg 04:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I must protest very strongly at these calls for deletion. Vaguely referring to policy is not the same as reasoned argument. They are incorrect for three reasons: 1. NOTNEWS does not say what everyone thinks it says, as I explained above. NOTNEWS is not a blanket reason to not cover events. 2. This is a possible criminal event, so it is covered by our notability rules on criminal events, not by BLP1E. 3. There is ample national American news coverage, which I have linked to above, and which I will now incorporate into the article. Fences&Windows 14:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sources added. National in depth coverage has included Fox's Line Up, Nancy Grace's Cold Cases, CNN's American Morning, 20/20, and Montel Williams. Fences&Windows 17:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it falls under BLP1E. WP:BLP is policy. — Jake Wartenberg 21:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me phrase that better: citing BLP1E as a reason for deletion is not appropriate. The article was always about her disappearance and is now titled to reflect this, so it is in compliance with what BLP1E says: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options." As the event is notable, we should keep the article. If you want to delete, you'd better not simply cite NOTNEWS and BLP1E, as they aren't valid reasons to delete this article. Fences&Windows 21:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Chalk me up as one of those who greatly dislikes the inclusion of articles simply because the subjects kick up a lot of ephemeral fuss on the 24-hour-news cycle. That being said, the renaming took BLP1E out of the running, the article is focused on the event rather than on the person, it's heavily sourced and from non-local sources as well. While NOTNEWS is also being cited, the text is quite clear: it pertains mostly to individuals, not events, and only those events which are "[r]outine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" are specifically enjoined; I'd hate to be the one daring to make a case for the Boston Globe, ABC News or CNN being tabloids. I'd like to advocate deletion, but legitimate policy grounds to do so just aren't present here. RGTraynor 00:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in this case, I feel there is sufficient coverage, over a sufficiently long period of time, for WP:BLP1E to not apply. Some disappearances are notable, and this seems to be one of them. Robofish (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Some of the things said above about NOTNEWS are not correct. It certainly does apply to routine news coverage about events such as kidnappings, murders, and executions, and it does apply to routine announcements in non tabloid publications such as say the NY Times or the Wall Street Journal. However, the fact that this particular disappearence has received repeated coverage at intervals for at least 5 years (2004-2009) means that it is not just a transient news event and thus is notable. Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nom. Regarding NOTNEWS, as Rusty pointed out, NOTNEWS does apply to this sort of coverage. It is routine for local newspapers to cover missing persons in their area. Tabloid journalism is not limited to tabloid newspapers. Tabloids just print pretty much exclusively tabloid journalism. Specifically speaking on this article as it is now, BLP1E does indeed no longer apply because the article has been retitled to the event, which is what 1E dictates. Whether or not NOTNEWS continues to apply depends on how significant the non-local coverage is. Are the pieces original stories or are they merely reprints of the local? WP:N/CA comes in at this point. Missing person cases where criminal conduct is suspected are not inherently notable. In fact, it gives a strong argument against keeping some of the recent cases we've seen come up at AFD.
Intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on reliable sources. However, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it may be better in the first instance to create a Wikinews article about it until the event is mentioned by a significant number of third-party sources that have at least national or global scope.
So the question is, how "intense" has the media coverage been, and do we consider this a "high profile" case? I think of Lacy Peterson when I am considering what a high profile missing persons case is. Lara 16:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- When you see national media stories like this [62] 4 years after the event, and local media stories like [63] even more recently, and when a google search for Maura Murray yeilds 690,000 hits I think you have passed the threshold of a transient news story. This doesn't seem like even a marginal case to me. There are plenty of marginally source articles about one news cycle only topics that deserve deletion, but I don't see this as beeing one of them. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, it appears that this particular case is being used as part of a campaign to have a cold case unit created for NH [64], which would make it part of the "incorporation in an important public debate" notability recognized by for example WP:News articles.
  - Comment: In addressing what is and is not in NOTNEWS, allow me to quote the pertinent section: "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic ... While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." If anyone can point out where the rule states that news coverage of kidnappings, murders and executions (for instance) falls under its aegis, feel free. RGTraynor 01:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You started your quote late. The sentence before what you quoted says: " However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability ". That wording applies to all news. However, it doesn't (at least as far as I am concerned) apply here to this particular article because this event has received repeated coverage years after the fact. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The section you are quoting is not from WP:NOTNEWS. In point of fact, the sentence before the section I quoted is "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." You're quoting from the GNG, a guideline generally trumped by verifiability. RGTraynor 08:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You are correct. My quote is from WP:notability. However it is still applicable here. The guidelines work together.Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator and WP:BLP1E. Non-biographical article. Chuthya (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in fact it is no more listed as a biography -it has been moved for this reason. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 21:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. BLP1E applies to any article. Law_{type! snype?} 21:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Per nom" and a vaguewave at BLP1E isn't reasoned argument. Fences&Windows 22:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E applies to biographies of people only known for one event, not to "every article". They way BLP1E applies in this case is the following wording, which I think is being overlooked: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event ... a redirect of the person's name to the event article [is] usually the better option." Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) should be our guide here. This is not a biography of Maura Murray, it is about her disappearance, a notable event covered many times by local and national media over a five year period. Fences&Windows 22:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP1E is no longer relevant as the article has been renamed to "Disappearance of Maura Murray". That leaves only the notability concern and I can't see it given the amount of both local and national coverage. I think the original nominator tried to claim all the coverage was local but that is silly as Nancy Grace/CNN are not local. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair to the nominator, the sources included at nomination were all local, and national coverage may not have been clear from a quick search. So the claim wasn't silly, just wrong. Fences&Windows 04:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are several comments above about BLP1E no longer being applicable as the article has been moved. I think that would be a fair call to make if the title did not include her name. If there was some connection to another case we could rename it to Coed disappearances or whatever, but this article is still about 1 event, connected to 1 person. In my view, this still clearly falls under BLP1E. Kevin (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This would mean that no articles on events where a single person has been the main or only subject involved would be allowed, regardless of the event notability? This makes little sense and WP:BLP1E explicitly says that the article should cover the event and not the person, that is what is happening here. BLP1E is to avoid having "biographies" where all the weight is made to a single event, not to prohibit covering events themselves. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 13:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as renamed The event is notable per WP:GNG and WP:N/CA as her disappearance has received “received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” Renaming and reworking of the article correctly applies WP:BLP1E in that the article now covers the event and not the person. Nolamgm (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benat Achiary

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

Does not satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:MUSICBIO. He/she has released 1 CD by German label FMP (according to the article) and there is no coverage by reliable third party sources. ƒ(Δ)² 11:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A quick googling shows some source indicating he's indeed notable in his genre: [65], [66], [67]. --Cyclopia (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second site doesn't constitute a reliable source, and the third isn't in English. However the first one might indicate notability. The first source is fine (it's an interview), however that's the only reliable one I could find. He does, in fact, have a collection of Basque CDs to his name, all produced in collaboration with other people, I do not know if that is enough for notability. If I could get a third opinion, I'll withdraw/continue this AfD. ƒ(Δ)² 15:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Google News and Google Books searches helpfully linked above show clear notability, with this singer being the subject of articles in publications such as Le Monde[68][69] and being described as "the most famous figure in the French Basque music scene" in ISBN 9781858286358, amongst many other sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Could someone please close this? As mentioned above, I will now withdraw this nomination. Thanks, ƒ(Δ)² 18:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. "Keep" in the sense of "do not hit the delete button." Opinions differ about whether this should be retained as a separate article or merged (and where to?), but that is a matter for continued talk page discussion. I predict that this will be seen as "old news" in time and merged somewhere, probably before they switch to Comic Sans in 2010. Sandstein 17:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verdanagate

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

Absolutely non-notable. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and this isn't news anyway. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect to IKEA. There seems to be a few examples of coverage in reliable sources, but this is classic slow-news-day news that probably warrants a sentence or two in IKEA at the most - spinning it out into a genuine "controversy" seems to border on original research, I'm not seeing that level of dismay in the reliable sources cited. Serious WP:NOTNEWS. ~ mazca ^talk 13:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to IKEA Catalogue. Propaniac (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect, agree with Propaniac. Also note that this title is a neologism that is doomed never to achieve currency, given the slight scope of the "event" it refers to. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious: Look at all that mainstream coverage (2030 ghits for verdanagate; 121,000 ikea verdana; over 70 gnews hits), but probably best covered in IKEA with a redirect. --Milowent (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge at worst, possibly keep. The article title is ridiculous, but the event/controversy appears notable enough. Ordinarily I'd see this as an obvious merge, but when the NYTimes coverage is a prominently displayed piece by one of the paper's major cultural critics (Edward Rothstein), a separate article isn't out of the question. Might be better to just wait and revisit the question in a month or two, to see if there's any durable impact. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge (selectively merge) to Ikea, as called for in the [Talk:Verdanagate#Merge proposal|merger proposal]] on the talk page of the article. The topic deserves mention in the Ikea article. The first choice when a company is in the news, is to add that event to the company's article. There is really not that much that needs to be said about this. There was some reaction to the change from "the typography community" which was noted by some mainstream news sources, but per WP:NOTNEWS this does not require a permanent encyclopedia article on the brief news flurry. Edison (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, merge at worst. The article title is what the matter is known as. Significant for anyone interested in corporate redesign. Tsinfandel (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, merge at worst. The matter was widely covered by several sectors of society, including the business community, academia, and as shown by the references, by the mainstream press in both the US and the UK. Time, The Guardian and The New York Times are all serious enough not to waste their valuable space with mere "slow-news-day" trivia.--Technopat (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

300 Bars and Runnin'

(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}}.

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-Unit vs. The Game feud
Delete. A non-charting song that fails WP:NSONGS. No reliable sources to prove notability.I can see an influx of angry fans on the horizon, so I'd like to remind the closing admin that this is a discussion, not a majority vote. Dale 11:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't think that we used that template as a preventative. Admins can usually sort out the improper !votes without too much trouble.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 2 October 2009 (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) 00:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Dalejenkins, if I were you, I would refrain from using that template until there are SPAs showing up in significant numbers. I'd also refrain from "reminding the closing admin" of the blindingly obvious, and if you absolutely have to, don't use bold type. Assuming bad faith on the part of debate participants is also not a very good idea. In fact, just state your case briefly and neutrally and leave it at that.
Delete because I can't find enough sources to justify an article, I can't see an appropriate merge target and I can't see any value in a redirect.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred W. Hunt

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

It's not clear that this painter meets WP:BIO. Coverage accessible through on Google is apparently limited to this AskArt entry, itself submitted by a person from the association he is said to chair. Sandstein 11:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since personal websites are clearly not WP:BIO material, delete. --WngLdr34 (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Cyclopia (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, searches I've made show (as the nom attests) that an AskArt entry (which due to the submitter fails WP:BIO, since it isn't third party or independent) is all there is. This is a comprehensive failure of WP:BIO, without even a single reliable source, let alone multiple ones. Ironholds (talk) 09:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 22:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eckard Rabe

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

WP:BLP failing wp:bio: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. $P i k i w y n$ ^talk 10:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a lousy article, but the subject is apparently notable enough. There are enough Google News hits to evidence notability, even though the best sources appear likely to be print/offline. The online sources, thin as they may be, indicate the subject passes WP:ENT, and we don't delete articles just because finding the sources needed to expand beyond stub-length is hard work. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix this stub about this "soapie" star; see [70]. 18:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Bruma

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

I don't think being an unused substitute against Porto is enough to meet WP:ATHLETE. Also there is a lack of independent sources meaning he fails WP:GNG. If it is kept, it probably needs a bit of cleaning up. Spiderone 10:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 10:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE (as he hasn't actually played) and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete- He is part of Carlo Ancellotti's plans, why make another article once he makes his first team debut. I'm the one who wrote this article, and everything is corrected, he has a full Biography of himself in the citation below, look at it.Sonyds13 (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Do you have a crystal ball? What if he gets injured this season and doesn't play? Spiderone 08:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A "full biography" you say? As in the usual run of the mill stuff (age, date of birth etc.) that every club publishes about its own players? That doesn't make him notable! Giant Snowman 10:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and GiantSnowman. – Pee Jay 08:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and GiantSnowman. Kosack (talk) 11:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability for sportspeople at WP:ATH. Also fails WP:GNG due to lack of any third party media coverage. --Jimbo^[online] 17:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes the WP:GNG. Non-trivial coverage here and here. Signed up for a major professional team. Running about as we did with Nathan Delfouneso, deleting because of a clause demanding that the subject has played, only so that we can write up the article over again a few months later is an exercise in pointless bureaucracy, and a waste of editorial resources. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- There is no guarantee that he'll make his debut this season or even next season Spiderone 14:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you don't have to rewrite anything, just ask an admin to restore. --Jimbo^[online] 14:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am an admin, and I know that you cannot "just ask an admin to restore" without proving that there is a consensus to do so. Undoing the deletion would need another discussion at DRV. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, top clubs like Chelsea don't sign on young players with professional contracts, in order to put them on the bench in Champions League matches for decoration. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are a few players who have signed professionally with Chelsea and not played. See Stuart Searle Spiderone 15:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant restore once he plays in a fully-professional competition, not just willy nilly. --Jimbo^[online] 22:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, if there is added material, it doesn't even take an admin to restore, you merely have to rewrite the article. You would need to make it very plain on the talk p;.. how it differs from the deleted article to avoid deletion ass unaltered re-creation, and if it does get speedied, then go to deletion review. But if he does make a professional appearance, I cannot imagine the article would not be permitted there, and I hope no admin would be so careless as to G4. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats because they were injured during the months of August September. Alex, Zhirkov, Nemanja Matic, and Ross Turnbull were injured. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonyds13 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is in and listed as a current member of the Dutch U-21 squad which should be good enough reason to give him some space. But the article should at least give some facts as date and place of birth and his Feijenoord period to meet minimum standards of other player's bio's.24.207.124.122 (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Papa Niang

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

Already tagged as an article that may fail notability guidelines. The PROD was contested saying "highest tier and youth international" which isn't enough to pass WP:ATHLETE. He also fails WP:GNG as it stands. Spiderone 08:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 08:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. UltraMagnus (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xhevdet Gela

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

Contested PROD. Plays in a league that isn't professional and hasn't achieved enough coverage to meet WP:GNG Spiderone 08:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 08:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. UltraMagnus (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arto Lindberg

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

Still no assertion of notability made. The PROD remover said the Finnish league is the highest level and therefore professional but this list says otherwise Spiderone 08:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 08:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 10:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not professional. Geschichte (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professional player. Does not fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --SM (talk) 13:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But he does though! - he hasn't played in a fully-pro league, and he hasn't reveived significant coverage! Giant Snowman 15:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pub Rock Tour

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

Non notable concert tour. No more notable than any of the other 10,000 concert tours that happen every year, and we don't have an article for them. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Also nominating the following articles for similar reasoning:[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no valid reason given for deletion. Despite the nominator's claim, we have around a thousand article on concert tours[71], and tours by notable bands will generally pass the GNG due to published reviews of the concert. Articles like these don't strike me as a whole lot different from the articles on the individual seasons of professional sports teams -- easy enough to document, of interest primarily to the most devoted fans of the team/group involved. Boring the average Wikipedia user to tears isn't grounds for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- The fact that none of these articles contains a single reliable source means that they fail WP:GNG - a perfectly valid reason for deletion. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. We have plenty of similar tour articles already, many of them mainly consisting of an event listing, so why should we treat these articles any differently? JIP | Talk 00:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As I said above, no reliable sources = no notability = no article. Articles consisting of purely event listings with no reliable sources should be deleted. The fact that some exist that haven't been deleted is not a valid reason to keep other such articles. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Numerous such articles have been deleted for the same valid reasons I have presented above: see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Go_Chuck_Yourself_Tour, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Escape_Together_World_Tour_2009, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everytime We Touch Tour (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Barfly Mini-Tour and various others. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Content should go on the Big Day Out/Airbourne pages
Delete Unsourced. Contain no notable content. Keeping an article just because similar articles have not been deleted is not a valid reason. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability/lack of RS. A tour by a barely-notable band before they'd even had a disc out is going to fail WP:GNG, no matter what way you look at it. (The Airbourne (band) article also has a number of issues.) Orderinchaos 03:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as spam, band is unheard of. NGNG tour is future tour. Abductive (reasoning) 18:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete due to the WP:ATHLETE failure (if an editor has proof that the Finnish league is actually fully professional, let me know and I'll restore). пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonni Heikkinen

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

Contested PROD. Player doesn't play in a professional league. Spiderone 07:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 07:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please stop giving false information. Finnish league is professional and Heikkinen had a professional contract with his club KuPS. --SM (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment False information? Why don't you start backing up your claims with reliable sources. Spiderone 12:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are meaning that in every article of football player there should be mentioned that the league he is playing or have previoisly played is professional? In my opinion that is not an useful idea. --SM (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof on the Veikkausliiga page that the clubs are professional. In fact it's the opposite. Spiderone 13:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Now there is, and it is the only sourced claim in the whole page. --SM (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I translated the page and found no such claim of professionalism. Quite the opposite. The previous statement said stuff about part-time contracts and we have no reason to suddenly say that it's a load of rubbish since it's been there since Wikipedia was born. Spiderone 13:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must understand that Google Translator etc. are not quite reliable. The page says that the clubs, managers, players etc. are on professional level but still many players have an education which is normal because you can't play football your whole life. That does not meen that the players are not pro. --SM (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what I read it said that players were studying and playing football at the same time. A clear sign of being part-time which means the league must be semi-pro to accomodate. Spiderone 14:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In that case English Premiership is not professional? Many players are doing other jobs like appearing in advertisements and some are studying manager's licence etc.--SM (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should look at WP:GNG. Has the player received "significant coverage"? Absolutely not. Nothing more than trivial mentions. Any "sources independent of the subject"? No, nothing more than squad profiles. Any "reliable sources"? No, there aren't any that I can find and there certainly aren't any at the moment. Spiderone 14:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonni Heikkinen has received sinificant coverage in Finnish sports media very much the same amount as any second highest tier player. The coverage is mostly in Finnish which I think you don't understand, so I believe your estimations about the coverage are not very reliable.--SM (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But just looking at the article there would be no way of knowing that this player has significant coverage. Spiderone 18:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How good or bad an article is has nothing to do with the notability of the subject. --SM (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't just take your word for it either. As it stands this article fails WP:GNG. An unsourced BLP can't ever pass it. Spiderone 18:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said the amount of sources in the article has nothing to do with the notability of the subject. You can write bad article about anybody and it does not have effect to the notability. --SM (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SM: The sources are needed for both verification and to improve the article. I was just discussing ball in Finland on another talk page. Correct me if I am wrong but it looks like some Finnish players are professional while others are not. This has caused some confusion with the athlete specific notability guidelines. If you have sources regarding this specific player it would help. Even if they are not translated we can poke around the internet and see what we can find. As it stands, Heikkinen won't be assumed pro (not saying he is or isn't just saying what will happen). More importantly, the article simply isn't ready to be an informative summary of the guy without additional sources. If you want to seriously see if this can be an article the best way to go about this is by providing those sources.Cptnono (talk) 12:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is not fully pro at the moment. But he has played in top tier. Example: in 2006 he won the Finnish League Cup with KuPS [72]. And yes, at the moment the article is not very good in any way. But the vote is on about notability, not the level of article itself. --SM (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Finnish highest league players are almost entirely pro. Like I answered you in my talk page, in 2001 survey only 8% of top tier players had other jobs than football [73] (which does not mean they are not pro still!), and since then the league has improved in all ways. --SM (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment: How much a player earns money is not the best indicator for notability. For example media coverage is more important. The top league matches are shown on national television, written on national newspapers etc. which I think makes the media coverage "significant". --SM (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How are we supposed to know that this player is notable? Do we just take your word for it? Wikipedia isn't about assumptions, I'm afraid. If he has been talked about in newspapers then why can't this be used in the article? As it stands this is a stub and, unlike Gael Kakuta and Lauri Dalla Valle, there is no reason to dispose of WP:ATHLETE in this case. Spiderone 12:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has played in the Finnish top league (a professional league) + is a League Cup winner. ,,n (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But it isn't a professional league though, as your mate SM fully admits! Giant Snowman 08:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I know that technically this discussion could have been closed as a no consensus call, but given the weakness of the arguments above (a he said/she said spat, a per nom), I think this could benefit from more community input. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: Maybe this has exposed flaws in WP:ATH and WP:FPL criteria, but as it stands, those are the tools by which we judge articles that do not apparently meet WP:GNG. If those wishing to defend the inclusion of this article had spent as much time and effort sourcing and providing the evidence of the significant coverage that they claim exists (but is absent from the player's fi.wikipedia page) as they have trying to overturn established criteria, I might have been able to !vote otherwise. Kevin McE (talk) 10:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Spiderone may have been in a spit spat contest above, but Kevin is correct that the player fails to meet WP:ATH and WP:FTL criterion. avs5221 (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has played in the top-level of a notable European league. Eldumpo (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the league is "notable" is POV. It is a semi-pro league and the player himself has not received any coverage in secondary sources. Spiderone 07:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All you've done is prove that the player is real, you haven't proved that they are notable. Spiderone 07:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment is the winner of a Finnish cup competition less notable than someone who has made a substitute appearance for a fourth tier English team in an early round of a cup competition? WFCforLife (talk) 17:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:ATHLETE, yes. This is why the article must pass WP:GNG. Spiderone 17:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that my example certainly wouldn't pass the GNG, yet would be kept. I'm leaning towards delete because there is currently no demonstration of notability (in Finnish or English). The keep arguments claim that such sources exist (in Finnish), and if these are put into the article and verified as being reliable, I don't see a basis for deleting it, whether it passes the atrociously worded WP:ATHLETE or not. WFCforLife (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Finnish sources (which I still believe do exist) have not materialised. A name on a lineup sheet isn't sufficient. WFCforLife (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Nordström

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Spiderone 07:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 07:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plays for a club in the Finnish top division, so I think "fails WP:ATHLETE" is a rather superficial evaluation (aka WP:JUSTAPOLICY). My knowledge of Swedish sources is limited, and Finnish sources virtually non-existent, but a look through Google showed that his appearance in matches is something which sports media takes note of [74]. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That is a weak argument. Basically, this person hasn't played a game in a league that isn't even professional. Players in professional leagues who haven't played tend to get deleted despite media coverage. See: Mattia Destro and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Huth (2nd nomination) Spiderone 12:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was unaware that Nordström had not yet played for the top team, so I'll withdraw the keep vote for now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - My keep vote is back in place after a little more research. The player has also played for Finland's U17 team on several occasions, 30 according to this article. The requirement of "fully professional league" is unreasonable if it excludes players from fully professional teams such as IFK Mariehamn. It would mean that players on a 12-team fully professional league are notable, but that expanding the league with two semi-professional teams would suddendly render all the players, including the professional ones, to be non-notable. It appears that Nordström is considered to be a player of some importance in Åland since the sports press there highlights Nordström when he plays these matches. He is not the most notable player in Finland, but there I feel now that the press coverage from numerous occasions is enough to let him pass the WP:GNG guildeline. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Any links to this press coverage? The references provided are only passing mentions and youth caps don't confer notability. Many players have their pages deleted and then recreated when they make their senior debut. I don't see why this 16 year old is any more remarkable than, say, Jeffrey Bruma who has an U21 cap but still fails notability guidelines. Spiderone 11:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        [75][76][77][78][79]. Granted, they are all individually quite thin, but they do specifically name a single player in an otherwise short news notice. The last one also covers him winning a "silver ball" award. Note also that this is what I can find on the internet in Swedish (a language which I can read), and does not include anything in Finnish. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, has not played. Geschichte (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professional player. Does not fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. --SM (talk) 13:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment he fails both because the league is not fully professional and he hasn't received any independent or significant coverage from secondary sources. Spiderone 14:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE, the media coverage supplied doesn't appear to be more than trivial as required by WP:GNG, and consensus has long been that youth caps don't afford notability. I think this is the wrong article to make a stand on. This is a 16-year-old who hasn't even played for his club. Recreate when he's actually done something in his career. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deljan Bregasi

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

This PROD appears to have been removed as part of a mass removal of every PROD I've made recently. There is no evidence to suggest that he's played a professional match and youth caps, especially under 17 ones, aren't notable. Spiderone 07:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 07:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Professional player. Youth internationals are notable. --SM (talk) 13:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No they aren't. Look here England national under-18 football team Spiderone 13:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Kadić

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

Argument for removal of PROD was that he plays at the highest level of Bosnian football. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this is professional so he still fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Spiderone 07:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 07:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 08:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not professional. Geschichte (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorologist George Wright

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

This is primarily a promotional article about a meteorologist, but even if cleaned up, I'm not sure this meets notability standards. Most ghits are promotional or mentioning a case where he was an expert witness. I can't find any article on him personally. Prod was declined, and not sure if this meets speedy criteria. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to establish notability as per WP:N. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is kept, it should be renamed to George Wright (meteorologist) – 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing from the article to indicate even local notability. This is the lone contribution from an SPA, and appears to be a thinly veiled ad for the subject's consultative service. Let's just say significance is cloudy, might rain on this parade... [by the way, there have to be seven consecutive votes one way or another before icy flaky precitpitation can be referred to] Mandsford (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. MuZemike 23:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yogi Tea

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

Non-notable product. Some news sources exist, but they appear to be passing mentions, press-releases or paid placements. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are news articles on GNews - including Boston Globe, The Register Guard, and others. Some are brief mentions, some may be longer articles (now pay, unfortunately.) Still seems to meet the notability criteria IMHO. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet the sourcing requirements of WP:CORP. The two sources available are pretty thin or semi-unavailable. The Globe article is locked behind a firewall and can't be used for verification, and the Register-Guard article is mostly about the growth of the parent company, not the brand of tea. There simply are not enough comprehensive sources to get decent verification of facts about the subject. Steven Walling 18:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. —Katr67 (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment by nom being locked behind a paywall isn't a barrier to being used for a reference. My objection to using such things as a reference is that they are third party vanity. Common sense says that vanity pieces don't establish notability. If we accept that as notable then everything with 15 minutes of fame lives forever on Wikipedia. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

It's not a barrier to it being used as a reference, the policy states that's it's "by no means necessary". But when it's one of the only two available sources verifying notability of a subject, I think it's editorially fair to require something that we can all access as part of the fact checking process. Otherwise it's pretty much worthless. Steven Walling 19:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True that. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Excerpts from Boston Globe Article for review. The entire article is 251 words long, and is a product review. I won't post the whole thing in the interest of copyright, but here's a small sample for the group to consider: "Yogi Tea." Mar. 6, 1997. The Boston Globe

HIT OF THE WEEK: This energizing though caffeine-free beverage isn't really tea...it's an exotic blend of spices and herbs, packaged loose."

"This may sound time-consuming....The process is delightful, the results sublime."

"Our favorite is Original Yogi Tea, available at health food stores and natural supermarkets. Its ingredients are based on the teachings of Ayurveda, Indian holistic medicine."

"As Yogi Tea simmers on the stove, it emits a luscious fragrance that lingers for hours, part of why we love preparing it."

"Yogi Bhajan's Yogi Tea, 3 oz., about $3.50 in natural food stores, $1.99 at Trader Joe's. Box of 16 teabags, $2.99, at Cambridge Natural Foods and Bread & Circus." Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that there are articles mentioning it in the LA Times, also behind a paywall, as well as other newspapers. I'm generally hesitant to use any one of these as proof - since it is difficult to know if the article merely mentioned the tea or was about it - but it did receive publicity in two national newspapers (the Globe and the LA Times.) I'm not counting anything appearing in a trade mag. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are news articles on this topic. Ret.Prof (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found above, and three more here. While it has currently several issues, it could be fixed. Bearian (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I thought this was notable, but the press mentions don't appear to be substantive so notability can't be proven by current Wikipedia standards. This content would be better redirected to the as-yet-unwritten article about the parent company Golden Temple, LLC (or whatever it should be named). The company is definitely notable with tons of reliable third-party news articles. Katr67 (talk) 23:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. I do know that I voted in this, but the articles have been merged into an entirely new article, which will distort things significantly. The new article on Black Widow murders should be renominated under a different rationale if it is to be deleted. NW (Talk) 15:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Widow murders (neé Olga Rutterschmidt)

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

fails WP:BLP1E; a person notable for only one event. The event itself isn't important enough to justify coverage - while sad, it fails WP:NOT#NEWS by a long way. Ironholds (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now, although I would be open to merging to an appropriately named article focusing on the murders. Notable enough for there to be a few GBook hits for Golay and Rutterschmidt: [80]. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helen Golay. Location (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Helen Golay and rename to an appropriate title. They do not need separate bios for one event. Law_{type! snype?} 06:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You then have the problem of whether the base court case passes WP:NOT#NEWS. Ironholds (talk) 06:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - True but I'd like to see that happen when the article is presented as one. Maybe I'm just asking for punishment. Law_{type! snype?} 06:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As far as WP:GNG's "significant coverage in reliable sources", this case has TruTV and Dateline. As an aside, I really do wish there was more consensus on what constitutes "significant coverage" as it applies to criminals and criminal acts. Perhaps there should be more discussion about this in WP:N/CA, WP:NOT#NEWS, and WP:BLP1E. For some editors, the standard of notability requires that books be written about the crimes or the criminals. For others, tons of coverage on CNN or FOX suffices (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie Le). Location (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Tons of coverage is fine for me, as long as it's spread out and indicative. The coverage of these crimes seems to be limited to the immediate aftermath. Ironholds (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Rename - per User:Law - Alison ^❤ 07:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the event may possibly be barely notable, this article clearly fails WP:BLP1E. Kevin (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nominator's reasoning; the person is only notable for her actions in this one minor event. I would advise against merging simply because this article is too short to actually have much to merge anyway. NW (Talk) 10:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For some editors, the standard of notability requires that books be written about the crimes or the criminals. For others, tons of coverage on CNN or FOX suffices — This case has both. Witness the book by King and the extensive coverage in the Los Angeles Times. The true measure is not the types of the sources at all nor their circulations, which is perhaps where people are going wrong. It is whether the sources cover the subject in depth. The book and the LA Times coverage do. The PNC appears to be satisfied for this case. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. withdrawn (non-admin closure) SparksBoy (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques St-Cyr ballet dancer

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

Notability issues SparksBoy (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless I see some reliable sources covering this dancer, doesn't seem notable. A quick gsearch and gnews search didn't turn up significant coverage. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 05:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least in the first instance. Since the article states that he was a soloist over 20 years ago, a gnews search (without even the "all dates" setting!) hardly counts as due diligence. That he was a name to mention is borne out by these remnants, and a google search with a slight variation in spelling ("saint" rather than "st") is also somewhat more revealing. Since dancers don't get the same sort of coverage that sportsmen do, it's hard for somebody not in the field to judge notability. This is the sort of doubtful case where notifying somebody who knows about professional dance in Canada (through user categories?) might be helpful to an informed discussion. --Paularblaster (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paularblaster's persuasive comments. Google News turns up a few reviews from the 1980's, including one from the NYTimes, identifying the subject as a principal dancer with a major Canadian ballet troupe. That should establish notability; there's no great hurry in turning up the inevitable print sources, and there was no need to AFD this a few hours after its creation without trying to help the creator clean this mess up and resolve the COI issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think I found the same NYT article and news link that those above me did. It's not much, but I think it's enough to establish a tenuous claim to notability, and definitely enough to act on the advice of the above comments (improve and look for an expert). While there are still no sources to verify any of the content, http://mariajacquestango.com/accueil_en.html indicates he's still active, so there may very well be some truth. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sources were added during the AfD, meaning that the deletion rationale no longer applies at least in part. Sandstein 17:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshie Takeuchi

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

Unsourced BLP, questional notability, author appears to be the subject of the article. Eeekster (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Curious as to what Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL would turn up. Have slightly reworked the existing article. (Editing to add:) there's no indication that author is subject; looks far more like a non-English-speaking fan. --Paularblaster (talk) 08:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 cents from a lurker who randomly saw this while bored at work - First off, she's definatly not the one who wrote it, if only because her English is better than the article was created with. The announces from the major stations tend to end up with a significant fan base, and on top of her news reporting she also co-hosts Music Station which is a really popular prime time show, so I suggest Paularblaster is right it just being a fan.

Second off, while the article at the moment is definatly failing the notability guidlines, as an individual she definatly meets both WP:GNG and wp:entertainer. Theres a bunch more sources on her Japanese wiki entry (http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%B9%E5%86%85%E7%94%B1%E6%81%B5) but its hard to find sources for Japanese people anyway because magazines and newspapers don't archive their articles on the internet in Japan. Even the online ones usually delete stuff after a few weeks.

Anyway, I'm not !voting keep because I would feel hypocritical since I have no intention of fixing up the article, but thats my interpritation of the situation. Maybe someone who knows how that stuff works could post this to wikiproject japan? 123.222.137.153 (talk) 10:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The grounds given for deletion appear to have been met (there are sources, notability, and no indication that it's autobiography). --Paularblaster (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is now sourced and notability has been demonstrated. --DAJF (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. NW (Talk) 03:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Construction equipment theft

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

I believe the subject of the article may at some point meet the guidelines for notability. At the present time, the article has no reliable sources to verify most of the claims contained. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. It also seems to straddle the line of synthesis and original research. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 07:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Must be deleted.... Nothing importance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.22.242 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)—110.37.22.242 (talk •contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete original research, lacks any references to appropriate reliable sources. Yes, perhaps an article could be written, but there's nothing at all here to salvage Chzz ► 21:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep and reviseDelete Nothing here worth salvaging, since it is based on Japan only. I could definitely find hundreds or thousands of news articles about construction equipment theft, such as [81], [82] and [83]. but is it encyclopedic to have separate articles on theft of every kind of thing that exists? Auto theft has specialized law enforcement departments, and special laws. Construction equipment redirects to the odd title Engineering vehicle. (If I work as an engineer, is my car an "engineering vehicle?"). In that article, there could be a section created on their theft. They can be very expensive, and do great damage if sent rambling by a vandal or if used by a thief to break into something. The content here ~~is not really needed for that purpose.~~ can be revised and extended. Sources do exist on the topic: [84], [85], [86], [87]. Edison (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article can't really be kept as is, because the sources do not match the information contained in the article. If Edison is going to volunteer to edit this article in the direction of having even a few properly sourced, reliable statements, I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination... which wasn't based on notability, but rather on being original research and/or synthesis. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 05:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 02:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does one specific type of theft deserve it's own article? Are we next going to create car stereo theft or go-kart theft next? I'm sure there are many more sources for these than for construction equipment... I think the content of this article is better suited to a sub-section of motor vehicle theft or construction equipment... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Certainly different kinds of theft create different issues for society, which might deserve treatment in an encyclopedic way. Construction equipment theft might (for example) raise issues of public safety, or it might lead to more costly or inferior construction, or it might feed a black market for parts, or what have you. Demographics and sociology of different types of theft would also be interesting, as would police methods. I think a *lot* of types of theft could deserve an article. Gruntler (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I originally typed in "Delete", thinking this subject would be very difficult to source. But a Google search for "construction equipment" + theft turns up this online bulletin board [88], and this "Builders tell how to fight on-site construction theft", and this [89] and the interesting fact that "Nearly 40 percent of all construction and agricultural equipment theft occurs in just five states, according to a report released today by the National Equipment Register (NER), a database company established to reduce heavy-equipment theft rates and increase recoveries of stolen equipment." [90]. For what it's worth, Lo-Jack (maker of anti-theft products) calls this "a problem that costs construction companies up to $1 billion per year in lost assets" [91] (actually, it appears more reliable sources say the same thing); Google News archives search [92] shows this source from the UK [93]; and this [94]. If sourcing exists to create a good article on a subject that otherwise meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it's not up to us to refuse it space in the encyclopedia. Apparently there's a lot of information out there from reliable sources, so let's keep the page with an improvement tag until somebody adds to it. JohnWBarber (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Currently the article needs a ton of work, but "if the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Gruntler (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a ton of work is an understatement. The entire article needs to be re-written from the ground up. I doubt a single statement could be kept as is. Keeping it, without a volunteer to fix it, would be basically keeping a placeholder for the concept, because no one seems to want to fix it. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 06:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

would be basically keeping a placeholder for the concept, because no one seems to want to fix it. We call them "stubs". I'll put in 10 minutes of work into it. JohnWBarber (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stubs have the same guidelines as regular articles. Wikipedia does not allow introduction of improperly sourced material, regardless of the notability of the subject. Removing all of the improperly sourced statements would have left a blank article. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 00:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Term seems to come up at doj, only one matches exactly but many of these seem relevant, http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=site%3Ausdoj.gov+%22construction+equipment%22+theft&aq=&aqi=&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=7960896364bf1ed8 I haven't read the article but presumably it could be stubbed if really bad and leave some search links like this on talk page for a while. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Related recent AFD to consider: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laptop_theft --Milowent (talk) 14:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Authors above found plenty of sources and subject is clearly notable. --Cyclopia (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All right. I bit the bullet and added to the article. (Despite a few similarities, this is very different from motor vehicle theft in several ways, by the way.) This is actually kind of interesting and could be expanded quite a bit. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep article needs a lot of improvement and citations, but is notable UltraMagnus (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination - Due to some hard work at completely re-writing the article by Gruntler and JohnWBarber, I'm now willing to withdraw the nomination. In response to some comments on the board, however, I'd like to remind everyone that this article wasn't nominated for notability issues, as I've mentioned several times. The article was nominated for being original research which was not sourced properly. Regards, and any admin may now close. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 00:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 02:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Swanberg

AfDs for this article:

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

Seems the previous AfD was closed on procedural grounds, but that doesn't validate the article. On first glance it falls foul of WP:BLP1E; Swanberg is notable for a single event, specifically shoplifting Lego bricks. Coverage is given by reliable sources but, true to form, is focused entirely around the case, and doesn't justify a standalone article for this chap. An article for the crime might be an idea if it didn't fall foul of WP:NOT#NEWS so comprehensively; coverage is all from around the time of the crime, except for a single note in Oregon Live from when he was sentenced. In my personal opinion (which is obviously just backed up by common sense, not any kind of RS) this case is one of the "amusing" human interest stories that newspapers and websites run with, and the news reports are worth even less than they already would be. Ironholds (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clear BLP1E case. What's up with these random Oregon criminal BLPs? Not encyclopedic. Not a biography. Lara 03:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Old news, small news... even in the LEGO community (which I have some familiarity with) it was a minor sensation for a while at best, but it's a classic one event "bio". Try putting together a comprehensive bio to see what I mean. Where'd he go to school? What's he doing now (that's notable)? You can't. No sources. No story. Non notable person. I get way more Ghits than he does, and I'm not notable. (try it, put in "William Swanberg" (with quotes around the name, and with or without LEGO) then put in "Larry Pieniazek" (again, quoted name, and with or without LEGO)... I blow his doors off both times.) Delete ++Lar: t/c 03:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there was an article on ticket switching, I would say Merge and redirect but I don't know if one exists. He is notable not only for being the Lego Bandit, but for using this method of shoplifting. Until I can find such an article, I abstain because I think people like him belong in an article on a bigger subject. Tuxide (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a human interest story. He is not going down in history as the Lego-bandit. When I see a biography, that may have been created by a knee-jerk reaction to numerous local news stories, I have to wonder if that 'kid in Africa' is going to need this guy's 'bio' in 15 years. Then I think, no. Law_{type! snype?} 06:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything unrelated to the Lego theft. Even if criminality extends over a period of time, it needs to be something extraordinary to make it past WP:BLP1E. It is particularly poorly sourced as well. Kevin (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic WP:BLP1E situation. Utterly non-encyclopedic - Alison ^❤ 07:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge - We're in WP:BLP1E territory here, but the quality of coverage and unusual type of the case make it notable in my opinion. Still, maybe better covered within some other article (even if I wonder what one). --Cyclopia (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, LEGO theft? Haha, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Construction equipment theft and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laptop_theft. Hmm. Or perhaps Target theft and merge with Claude Allen --Milowent (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy you are laughing, but what are you trying to communicate, exactly? --Cyclopia (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Levity, and I failed, I guess. Below follows my substantive comments. --Milowent (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is really an article about an event, not a person (though titled as such for categorization), so its not really WP:BLP1E in that context. The article doesn't cover his schooling and personal life, etc., like a typical bad bio page -- its focused on the notable event. I think the essay Wikipedia:News_articles is also useful for consideration. In the prior AFD (which was yesterday???) SarekOfVulcan noted: "the 1E led to changes in training for Target employees, so I'd lean towards notability here." The News articles essay suggests that notability can occur when "The subject of the news item has set, or has caused to set, a precedent in some way" Its not a clear cut case, but I see no value in deletion.--Milowent (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but essays are.. well, essays. The previous AfD was closed due to procedural problems (see my nom) and the re-nom isn't worrying. Ironholds (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No encyclopedic significance. Every day, a few insignificant people get lots of press coverage in the "wacky news" section of newspapers because their trivial actions make it easy to write snappy headlines. Wikipedia notability isn't established by turnng up in the Jay Leno "Headlines" segment, and it shouldn't be established by turning up in the AP, UPI, Reuters, or Yahoo News equivalents. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In that this is a bio on someone who is notable for only one thing, BLP1E most certainly does apply. This is precisely what it was written for. I really wish people would stop creating this type of article. Lara 16:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, you are !voting twice. Would you mind moving your comment below your previous !vote (or reformatting it, so to avoid it being confusing)? Thanks! --Cyclopia (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BLP1E for sure, and quite frankly, where exactly is the encyclopedic value of the article? Minkythecat (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What is the encyclopedic value of ANY article? The reason people keep "creating this type of article" is a form of consensus - evidence that people think these articles should exist. There is sufficient sourcing available for a verifiable and accurate article. The judgment of lack on encyclopedic significance is quite subjective. Luckily for us, the Father of History, Herodotus, was careful in making such value judgments. E.g., he passed on reports of Phoenician sailors that were roundly dismissed as myths at the time, yet were later invaluable to proving ancient circumnavigation of Africa. Perhaps this is not the most noble article on which to state an inclusionist manifesto, but why is the LEGO bandit truly less uncyclopedic than the 1922 Denver Mint Robbery, the 1983 Perth Mint Swindle, or 1998 Bank of America robbery? Is Mr. Swanberg less worthy because he stole massive amounts of a child's plaything instead of gold bars? His canvassing of 5 states and elaborate scheme of switching UPC labels, use of electronic communications, etc., should not be excluded simply because the topic of Lego theft also makes us chuckle. --Milowent (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per notability trough sources, might not be the most famous person amongst people but the sources indicates notability beyond doubt.--Judo112 (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.

Delete - if this isn't a BLP1E, what is? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An actual biography is a BLP1E; this is not really a biography at all, its a documentation of a robbery scheme. We wouldn't have an article on the person if we had an article on the event, but the way the hive mind worked, this is where the event was documented. --Milowent (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails BLP1E for sure. However, as it is primarily about the event you could have gotten arround that by just renaming it great Lego theft or something, but that wouldn't help with the bigger problem, which is that the event itself fails the notability requirement. As WP:notability says: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability", and that is all you have for this event. This is a classic example of what people want to exclude when the say they don't want Wikipedia to turn into a news service. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clear BLP1E and NOTNEWS violation. The event has no historical significance or any other sign of notability. Triplestop x3 00:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re improvements to article: I did some reworking to the article and added some more citations, including to a 2006 WSJ article (a year after this story first broke) and 2009 North County times article that use the Swanberg case as an example of high-tech shoplifting scams which have become more common, and thus a big problem. NBC Nightly News also did a story on new shoplifting techniques in Nov 2006 that talked about Swanberg (based on the summary of sthe tory available from vanderbilt tv news archive). If the press is still mentioning this case years after the initial blitz of stories about it, it does have historical signifigance--Milowent (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fairly trivial mention, and still mentions the subject only in the context of the same Lego theft, therefore still fails WP:BLP1E. Kevin (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

29 sentences in a WSJ article is not trivial, and it explains the greater societal significance of the case. It even includes one of the WSJ's trademark sketches of Mr. Swanberg. When an event/person becomes a touchstone for discussion of a topic, I think it becomes notable. E.g., Robert Tappan Morris. --Milowent (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep more than one event, exceeds Wikipedia notability standard. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per getting his own WSJ sketch. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable event. How many shoplifters have done it this way, or ever gotten this much money from their criminal activity? He made over $600,000 in three years, and had hundreds of thousands of dollars of merchandise stored away. Dream Focus 21:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sort of theft by changing labels is a very trivial crime, and I cannot account for the interest in it here. Perhaps its the idea of making a good deal of money by a great number of small identical crimes, or an interest in anything Lego. DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources seem sufficient to show notability -- article has improved since nomination --Modelmotion (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Roland

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

fails WP:BIO and clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. also WP:ONEVENT applies here too. no significant coverage [95]. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Alexis Roland maybe fails WP:ATHLETE, but there is some coverage in reliable sources and I think she passes WP:BIO. I found a large article in NYTimes and profile in Huck Magazine. SkiNet.com says about her: At 10 years old, Alexis is sponsored by major brands; she rides on a custom board; she has appeared in a number of snowboard films; and she is a fierce presence on the competition circuit. Warren Miller Entertainment has officially tagged this next generation athlete as one to watch. This is on the borderline of notability. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep NY Times other bits is enough WP:RS for me to think it passes WP:GNG. Chzz ► 21:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in the NYT.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Hymns for Western Shores

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

Unconfirmed future album, with no tracklisting, or release date. Furthermore the "sources" are all message boards or blogs. Even if this was a real album, it's notability is questionable, as it is no more than a small collection of b-sides --T-rex 02:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:Music since title, track listing, and release date have yet to be confirmed (or apparently even rumored). Two sources from a blog and one from a fan message board fail WP:RS. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topiarte

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

fails WP:ORG, 1 hit in gnews [96]. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 18:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't look particularly troubling, but ... the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources? Nope. Fails WP:Org Lissajous (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone Dance

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

Contested prod... brand new radio show with no references or signs of notability... Adolphus79 (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable radio show (not station) that has been on the air for less then a fortnight --T-rex 02:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this radio show. Joe Chill (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helsinki slang

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

an unreferenced article that has existed for over 3 years that is full of original research. whilst I don't doubt that Helsinki slang exists, all it deserves is a few lines in Finnish language. Helsinki slang gets little hits in gscholar [97] and gnews [98]. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic seems sourcable and capable of meeting all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which is a better way of assessing whether the subject deserves an article. I followed the link on the article page to the Finnish Wikipedia article on the subject, and that appears to have plenty of sources,[99] although I can't verify any of them. I've left notices at the talk pages of the creator and the first major contributor to the article, perhaps they'll be able to add sources. There is also a category at Wictionary called "Helsinki slang".[100] JohnWBarber (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Topic seems to be notable. Article needs work, especially sources. Northwestgnome (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seems to be notable, does not mean notable...could you provide sources? LibStar (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It will be difficult to find any sources in English, but the Finnish version of the article [101] provides ISBNs for several dozen books about the topic, ranging from academic to humorous. Few of them are online, but this article [102] by the Finnish Literature Society can be used as a reference for the basics, and this article [103] in Helsingin Sanomat (Finland's main newspaper) notes that the 2001 Finlandia Prize (local literature Nobel) went to a Helsinki slang dictionary. Jpatokal (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't looked into any sources yet, but, from reading the article, this seems to be describing dialect rather than slang, so a move may be in order. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But the established name in the native Finnish is stadin slangi ("slang of the city"), not stadin murre ("dialect of the city"). If Finns themselves call it a slang, shouldn't the English Wikipedia reflect it? JIP | Talk 13:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, if that's the established name for this subject, and if "slangi" is a direct equivalent of "slang", then I would accept that the article name should stay as it is. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article needs work, but Helsinki slang (standin slangi) is an important and distinguished form of speech in Finland. There are tens, probably hundreds, of published works written about it (and in it), and the speech remains a constant point of interest for linguists. Several dictionaries exists, including this. The article would definitely need a history section to better establish significance. I can give it a shot, but finding English-language sources can be cumbersome. (teaser: stadin slangi, it turns out, is, due to the circumstances where it was born, a language spoken in Finnish grammar, but with vast majority of its vocabulary directly borrowed from Swedish, from Russian and, more lately, increasingly from English.) hydrox (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I have reformatted the article to better meet Wikipedia's standards and written an extensive history section with literacy references. Thanks to User:JIP and all others for your previous contributions. hydrox (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just in case there was any doubt about the meaning of my comments above. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

[[ ohidp996egdkshkjsfdjssfsorpprsfs'sflkksksbs jkjs'gs s' s ksj'''''oerrititfkklgshs;;;;;kl s d r[si w[wro ioi oriwwigirtwrgfgs[hgjiiowo5qw-itjwww50hwwohiw-h kduifyavhks]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.200.185.159 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yuu Watase . Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epotoransu! Mai

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

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources in any language. Lack of licensing outside of Japan makes it even more unlikely any could be found, and it was a very short lived series. Prod removed by User:Dream Focus with note of "It was translated into French, so yes, it was released outside of Japan. 33,000 Google hits means some notable sources are probably out there" but no evidence was provided for French translation and this is unconfirmed by Anime News Network. Obviously Google hits are not an indication of notability at all - scanslations and fansites are not notability considerations. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom with possible Redirect to Yuu Watase. The Japanese wiki barely has anything on it either. And with only 2 volumes, it was unlikely to have received the critical notice required for notability. —Farix (t | c) 02:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Contra the dePRODder, according to French Yuu Watase sites, this series is "non disponible en France." —Quasirandom (talk) 03:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not licensed in France. --KrebMarkt 05:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Published in a magazine with 197,273 readers. Wouldn't be carried that long if a significant number of those people weren't reading it. And with over 80,000 Google hits for the Japanese name, surely some of those are notable reviews. Dream Focus 09:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The number of Google hits is irrelevant, and so is the magazine the manga was serialized in. The notability of the magazine does not transfer to the magazine's contents. —Farix (t | c) 11:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to ~~Shōjo Comic~~ Yuu Watase --UltraMagnus (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- SOP for non-notable works (be they books or songs) is to instead redirect to the creator, in this case Yuu Watase. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies for my ignorance but, SOP? wp:SOP doesn't seem related --UltraMagnus (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - SOP = Standard Operating Procedure :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, my corpspeak was showing through. As Collectonian says. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok, thanks for that. --UltraMagnus (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Jake Wartenberg 02:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Wilson (murderer)

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

See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 02:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This actually doesn't seem to be a WP:BLP1E case. A Google search for "Reginald Wilson" + "David Birkett" [104] comes up with this article [105] in the Independent from 1999, when Wilson was said to be one of the three most dangerous prisoners in the UK so that special arrangements were being made for him and the other two. That's connected with the original crime but it also relies on an evaluation of him that doesn't just stem from the original murder (because it also takes into account his subsequent actions and how his keepers evaluate his then-present danger). So we have someone notable for more than one thing: murdering and then being more dangerous than your usual murder convict. As a source in the article shows, in 2008 it was reported that government officials disagreed over his ability to ever be parolled. Given all this, it shouldn't surprise anyone if he's in the news again sometime in the next five or 10 years (or 20 or 30). As BLP1E states: The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources. JohnWBarber (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeletePer WP:BLP1E not an indiscriminate collection of information, and not a directory of prison inmates. Killed a man by knocking him in the head and got convicted and sentenced. Hyperbole where someone calls him "one of the three most dangerous prisoners" is not that impressive. (Maybe it says something about the mildness of the average prisoner in the jurisdiction). Lots of murders worldwide get life sentences, or even death sentences. Crystal ball gazing about what he might do in future years really doesn't enter into the deletion debate. Edison (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You say lots of murderers worldwide get life sentences, but only three in all of the UK were judged worth putting in a more secure confinement than the UK's most secure prison. Here are the key parts of the 1999 article I linked to. This can't be crammed into WP:BLP1E or "Crystal ball gazing": Brodie Clark, the new director of high security prisons at the Prison Service, has decided the three continue to pose an extreme risk and must be moved for the sake of staff and other inmates. [...] Wilson, 34, has been a disruptive inmate, trying to escape from Frankland prison, Co Durham, after cutting through the bars of his cell. He gave himself up after realising a ladder made from old furniture was too heavy. The 1999 article appeared about 9 years after the murder. One event? JohnWBarber (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lots of prisoners with life sentences escape or attempt to escape. Nothing novel in this. And in the US, there are thousands of life sentence prisoners and over 100 who were juvenile offenders, with no parole eligibility. Another run of the mill killer. Edison (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and move. Normally I'd make this a WP:NOTNEWS. However, I remember this was, at the time, a major news story in the area, and became the subject of a whole Crimewatch Review programme. Since then, the story has resurfaced in 1999 (as mentioned above) and again in 2008 on BBC News and two national papers, which I'd say scrapes it. Bear in mind, however, then even the most notorious murderers tend to appear in an article about their crime rather than an article about themselves (for instance, Ian Huntley). As such, I'd recommend renaming this to something like Hammer murder or Murder of David Birkett. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLP1E is not a reason for deletion. The policy only concerns the name of an article. As pointed out above, this individual is still getting coverage 18 years after his conviction due his rare whole life tariff. Keep and expand. Nolamgm (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I beleive Wikipedia should definately have articles on crimes/criminals that recieve signficant news coverage over an extended period, this one does not seem to qualify. The only source listed by the article is a newspaper article that isn't even primarily about this crime, but rather a list of criminals who had recieved "whole life tarrifs" with a brief blurb on each. A Google search for '"Reginald Wilson" murder' only turned up a couple of brief news articles. It is possible that some serious effort might turn up some sources that would establish notability but right now I know of none, so delete it is. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Try Googling murder + "david birkett" (the victim) and you get 1,000+ entries with articles from 2008 from what looks like every major news outlet in Britain. [106] News accounts from 1990 are going to be scarce on the web, no matter what the subject, but it's likely that the original murder was covered nationwide as well. This is significant coverage over an extended period on different topics for the same subject. JohnWBarber (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, after looking again maybe there are some good sources like: [107], but if you want to cut this debate off (and avoid ending right back at another AfD debate) you need to expand the article and cite some of these sources. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I don't have time to spend on it. I've made the case, properly, that the subject meets our WP:BLP1E criteria. In fact, the idea of deleting on WP:BLP1E grounds simply goes against the facts that he's noted for multiple events. A closing admin adhering to policy would opt to keep, one adhering to consensus will delete, which I expect. Frankly, I also don't have enough interest in the subject to spend more time on it. When someone does, they'll recreate it. Wikipedia's loss, but life is short. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, not notorious enough, the only reference is a short article with another murderer followed by a long list of other murderers, and the subject is a part of it. New seeker (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:ONEEVENT for his original murder conviction. His recent media resurrection (for want of a better word) is nothing but a passing mention about him and 50 other criminals, not significant enough to warrant his own article. Giant Snowman 14:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not for encyclopedia, but maybe for special interest sites. Tfz 15:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless there's a lot more to be said than is present in the article; I agree with Rusty Cashman in their analysis. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Caitlin Crosby. Closing as "merge" on the suggestion of the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still Have My Heart

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

Non-notable song. Fails WP:NSONGS. SummerPhD (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Caitlin Crosby. allen四names 15:40, 20 September 2009 (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) 01:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I am not taking into account Roy jyotirmoy's contribution, since it does not address a matter relevant to the inclusion of an article under applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Sandstein 17:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GEOSCAN

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

On-belt elemental analysis is of dubious notability. One specific system for doing this analysis is certainly not notable. Also spam aspects. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this on-belt elemental analysis system. Joe Chill (talk) 23:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep On belt elemental analysers are widely used in cement industries for analysis of stock pile and raw mix. Apart from that recently it has been introduced to mineral industry for analysis of minerals like iron ore, phosphate etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roy jyotirmoy (talk • contribs) 05:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC) — Roy jyotirmoy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spam without significant coverage in multiple independent reliable resources. At date of this comment 1 and 4 (of 4) are not independent (1=United States Patent Application 4=company promotion) and 3 is a site "where tens of millions of people each month publish and discover original writings and documents". Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Ombudsman Association

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

Contested prod, lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Members have been referenced in other contexts but I'm not finding the kind of focused articles on the organization that notability guidelines require. RadioFan (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2009 (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) 01:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love in a Lift

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

Today's "upcoming album" article. This actually has a title, so it escapes the HAMMER, but no track-list, release date or source; fails WP:NALBUMS, which requires a release date "in the near future" confirmed by reliable sources, and WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable Chzz ► 18:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2009 (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) 01:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no tracklisting, no release date --T-rex 02:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Fails WP:Music. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No tracklisting, source or release date that's more precise than the generic "sometime in 2010" means that it can be no other outcome. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 13:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Kekkonen

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

Doesn't appear to pass WP:PORNBIO. TheoloJ (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant coverage, only a couple of very brief mentions in Finnish News, hence fails WP:GNG Chzz ► 18:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Horrorshowj (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Just added multiple mainstream Finnish news sources with feature articles about Kekkonen introducing pole-dancing to Finland as fitness and dance. There are other refs as well - she seems to be very "notable" in Finland and that should be good enough for us! Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 06:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems obvious: Notable contribution (introducing pole-dancing to Finland), and sources (in Finnish, of course-- it's a Finnish subject). Thanks to Cherryblossom for finding those sources. Dekkappai (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2009 (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) 01:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability has been demonstrated with significant coverage in reliable sources. WP:ENT ("has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment") would seem more relevant than WP:PORNBIO. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Awaien Show

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

Contested prod. Does not meet notability guidelines, lacks references to 3rd party sources. I'm not finding any hits in Google news. RadioFan (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be nice if someone could check for sources in Urdu (or whatever lang) Chzz ► 18:41, 18 September 2009 (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) 01:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kubatko

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

Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO, and a possible WP:COI. Click23 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2009 (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) 01:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can find nothing noteworthy in English or Czechoslovakian. J04n(talk page) 18:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. # 09:25, 25 September 2009 Backslash Forwardslash (talk | contribs) deleted "NetMovers" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NetMovers

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

Third-party contested speedy. Although the two references included could be the basis of a valid article (but that probably wouldn't be enough), the current one is pure spam. Speedy delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The intention of the article is not to be spam - it describes the business model the company formed and how they used the internet to alter the way property is now bought and sold. This shift in model should be noted for informational purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.174.252 (talk • contribs) 2009-09-18 15:01:35

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please why was this relisted? This is just plain spam. The comment from the IP just screams out "Please, please, I wrote this to further my commercial interests because I told the venture capitalists my advertising plan was grassroots so I spammed Wikipedia describing my 'bold new business process methodology'" Make this go away. Miami33139 (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam (g11) - so tagged. One, the article does nothing more than advertise the website. Two, it's by admission of the above IP. Open shut case, in my opinion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Yes the article is "borderline spam" and was obviously created by someone with a coi but I still felt that we needed at least one other editor to endorse the nomination and that's why I relisted it. Furthermore, the two sources listed in the article (one looks like an independent non-trivial mention, the other I'm not sure about) suggests that it may be possible to write a neutral article on this subject. However, I agree that this isn't that article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devamrita Swami

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

Non notable Iskcon swami. Authorship of a book is not a sufficient grounds for inclusion. Wikid ^as© 10:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 14:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Jim Carmel (talk) 21:23, 18 September 2009 (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) 01:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one deserves a keep. Devamrita Swami has received significant coverage in this documentary and some coverage in the US media in the 1980s (in New York Times for example), when he was the president of New Vrindavan Hare Krishna community. Also he's one of the few senior leaders in the Hare Krishna movement, where he is a sannyasi, a diksa guru and a member of the Governing Body Commission.--Gaura79 (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Absence of WP:RS to support any claims on notability under WP:V. Appears to be a self promotional article. Wikid ^as© 20:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Above !vote of nominator struck, as it duplicates deletion statement. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 18:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gl-117

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

This game has not received significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources, so does not meet the guideline for notability. I am aware of its presence on happypenguin.org, sourceforge, etc, but these entries do not qualify for WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Marasmusine (talk) 13:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 20:43, 18 September 2009 (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) 01:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced. Miami33139 (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quite notable in being one of the only (if not the only) combat flight simulator for linux, also has coverage here--UltraMagnus (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This feels like WP:Advertising material and is happypengunin really a reliable website to cite? --WngLdr34 (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As the Happypenguin directory entry is generated through user submissions, it can't be considered independent or reliable. I also don't buy the "one of the only..." argument: What if I were to make another Linux Tron light cycle game? There's only one other to my knowledge. Does that get me a WP article? No. Marasmusine (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: do the interwikis count for anything? --Mokhov (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, unfortunately their references: [108][109][110][111][112] are not reliable sources (WP:RS). Marasmusine (talk) 08:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I meant the mere presence of the interwikis (assuming the interwiki articles are not complete garbage in themselves) --Mokhov (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: please userfy to me as a subpage if deleted. Thanks. --Mokhov (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hyper strong delete. Interwikis should not be cited as sources, ever. JBsupreme (talk) 22:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So far nobody cited interwikis as sources. --Mokhov (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to Source Forge's very reliable download stats, and older version of this software received 86,763 downloads on Fri Jun 25 2004. So at least that many people have seen it. Sounds notable enough for me. Wikipedia isn't running out of space, and if you don't like it, you aren't going to find it anyway, unless you just like searching for things you dislike and wish to destroy. No general vote has ever been done on guidelines, so I just ignore them as the policy ignore all rules says to do, and use common sense. Dream Focus 21:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- LOLOLOL. Did you just say, and I'm paraphrasing, "Keep due to download statistics, and IAR"??? Really????? Come on now. JBsupreme (talk) 08:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think I am going to side up with DreamFocus on this for the mentioned reasons. (I still hold on to my comment above.) --Mokhov (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Does not even come close to notability as the single reliable source (about.com) is a lightweight. There is no material to build an article with, and no need for WP to replicate a thousand software databases by providing a couple of lines of text about GL-117. Someone another 21:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celemony

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

DELETE. This software company is not evidently notable. JBsupreme (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2009 (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) 01:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lists one independent RS (Macworld) and that is almost verbatim copy of a press release. Miami33139 (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Melodyne is together with Auto-Tune market-leading audio-software tools for pitch-correction (much used and much debated). The article may however need upgrading. Gsoler (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've actually heard a good bit about Melodyne recently from friends and the net. I'm not very informed about it, which is why I looked it up- and saw this tag. I think it's fair to say it's a pretty prevalent topic right now. There were literally hundreds of people referring to it in the comments on blogs I looked at, usually in connection with Auto-Tune. From what I've gathered, the poster above me seems to be correct in that it's one of a couple of leading programs used to fix pitch in singers' voices for a more professional sound. The article seems to have issues with sourcing and may have been written by someone within Celemony, but it warrants fixing, not deletion. Here's an idea- change the article name to "Melodyne", similar to Auto-Tune's page.--Thecitrusking (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC) — Thecitrusking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 18:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sana-Software

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

Contested PROD. Notability not established, possible COI editor. Article creator (User:SanaSoftware, definitely a COI, already indef-blocked for username vio) may be the same user as User:Brambo123, who started editing when the creator was blocked. [flaming lawyer] 00:54, 18 September 2009 (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) 00:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is sourced to its own customers websites. That is not RS. Miami33139 (talk) 01:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real indepth coverage, mainly passing mentions [113]. LibStar (talk) 05:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, likely speedy delete, a non-consumer tech business (develops .NET software platforms for e-commerce, e-learning, and web content management) blowing its own horn. The non-words "e-commerce" and "e-learning" should be grounds for speedy deletion per se, but any text containing them is sure to be obvious advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Verifiability seems to be no longer contested, and we have no consensus as to notability, so default to keep. Sandstein 17:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice Sanborn

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

Non-notable person. Only reference is an unreliable blog. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – One of the few times in Wikipedia that the only thing you have to do to become notable is to live long enough. Ms. Sanborn qualifies under supercentenarians. I was able to find the following reference that is from a 3rd party – independent – verifiable – creditable source. [114]. I’ll in-line cite it in the article. Thanks ShoesssS ^Talk 17:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.. It's clear that the article is under construction. She is verified to be the world's 10th-oldest person here:

http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM

adding that as a source might be COI, but others could find it. Note the claimed age is born in 1895, but the 1896 record comes from census data.Ryoung122 21:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Clearly notable per WP:BIO as interpreted for supercentenarians. ukexpat (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I see nothing in WP:BIO that says people 110 and older are einherently notable and must be given a directory-type article. Please point out what you are citing. Edison (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Ryoung122. 74.249.149.228 (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless more non-trivial reliable sources can be found. A blog and one local news story is not sufficient. Would be willing to change my !vote if more sources can be found. Cheers, CP 16:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/state-local/at-114-one-of-texas-supercentenarians-dies-1.949307 There is a source. 65.81.247.9 (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Strong delete Would you vote to keep it once she's died? There is nothing notable about her whatsoever beyond thus far having remained alive. The article, if kept, will forever be a stub as there is nothing notable whatsoever about her beyond her age. The moment she passes, her notability passes with her. Nothing against the woman herself, but I can't see how she comes anywhere close to meriting a separate article. Simply a mention on the 10-oldest link should be more than sufficient. B.Rossow ^talk_contr 16:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dude, please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTE#Notability_is_not_temporary --Longevitydude (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I have read that. I don't think she's notable now, nor is it likely that she will do anything notable before she dies. Simply being one of the billions of non-dead people on the planet isn't, IMHO, notable. -- B.Rossow ^talk_contr 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guidelines are fairly implicit and her longevity is noteworthy and if she keeps living and those ahead of her on the list keep dying, she can end up higher in the ranks and garner further notability. Besides the fact that this isn't a paper encyclopedia and that the guidelines seem to indicate that she classifies as being noteworthy, I've found a few more sources for her [115][116] if it helps KirkCliff2 (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oldest people where she is already on the list of "Ten oldest people" and can remain on the list of "Oldest people since 1955" after she goes to her reward. Fails WP:BLP1E, where the event is "staying alive." The well-documented very oldest people are collectively encyclopedic, expressing examples of the extremes within the human species, but if all they are known for is being alive for a long time, they do not need individual directory-type articles, since Wikipedia is not a directory. Her biography is apparently, other than the continued living, no different than if she had passed at age 90. Edison (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong to say her biography would be the same if she died at 90, if she died at 90 she wouldn't be in the top ten and she wouldn't be Texas' oldest person. 74.249.149.87 (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you read the part where I said "other than the continued living?" Edison (talk) 19:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read that part, and if she didn't continue living she wouldn't be in the top ten and she wouldn't be the oldest person in Texas.67.33.119.28 (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted, obvious advertising and unreadable gibberish. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Plasticity

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

Essay with no reputable sources. The article claims that a book on the topic is being written, but that doesn't establish notability. Looie496 (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, another seemingly identical vertical may yield results never before imagined unreadable spam for something only the author cares about. Miami33139 (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as spam (G11). So tagged. Major crystal spammery talking about a book that hasn't been completed, published, let alone released. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Spam Spam wonderful Spam, WP:Advertising ham and bacon. --WngLdr34 (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clea Rose

AfDs for this article:

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

Local notability, only covered in one local newspaper over a period of about 8 months. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Lara 00:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Good coverage, and it seems to have stirred even parliamentary debate, which raises the notability enough to be over sea level. I think that the depth of article coverage is a bit exaggerated (a shorter article would be enough), but AfD is not cleanup. --Cyclopia (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and keep- it was Clea Rose case at some point, not sure why it still isn't. Any rate, cover the event, not the person, and the event seems to have plenty of lasting notabilityUmbralcorax (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and keep--what Umbralcorax said. JohnWBarber (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with move to Clea Rose case. The press in Australia maintained a keen interest in the case, in which a minor driving a stolen car hit and killed Rose, after being pursued at high speed by police. Police security camera footage of the area disappeared or the cameras malfunctioned. There was parliamentary hue and cry, and an eventual inquest, although oddly there is no press coverage online of the inquest finding,s despite steady coverage of the inquest from May to December 2007. There is continuing coverage of subsequent violations by the then-minor driver. The "keep" is weak because I see no evidence of changes in the high-speed pursuit policies for "suspicious cars," despite the widespread criticism. Articles about crime victims or accident victims should be titled to reflect they are not memorial articles about the previously non-notable person. This is consistent with WP:NOTMEMORIAL and other crime/accident stories about someone who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The first editor who moved it back to Clea Rose said it was not a "case" it was a "death." In fact it was a case. Edison (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as in the previous times this has been discussed for removal, while certainly locally notable there is no evidence that the case/death/accident has resulted in significant notable changes to laws/procedures in Canberra or wider, nor is their significant continuing news coverage ... so it would seem to fail notability. Re thought that discussion in Au parliament confers notability - Hansard records thousands of items raised in parliament each year that aren't, eventually, notable. Additionally, the article seems to stray very close to WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Lissajous (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, as a bio, this would fall under WP:ONEEVENT, but that event is probably notable enough for an article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I don;t think this is actually of general notability. If kept, should be moved, or possibly used as a section of an article on Police pursuit in Australia, or some similar appropriate topic. The emphasis on sentencing details etc. are irrelevant to any actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 23:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/move/redirect/delete/change. This article is not about Clea Rose. This is about a news event she was unfortunatley involved in. If this survives past being a news event (see WP:NOTNEWS) it should be changed to the event. She deserves better than being her passing. Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rename, although I'd like something better than just adding "case". - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a memorial site and not everything newsworthy is notable. Orderinchaos 03:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This woman has done nothing that meets WP notability standard. The most notable thing about her is that she was run over and that is not enough. Keep the Chlea Rose Case as that is what was got coverage. Even the hit and run driver is more notable as he keeps popping up in the papers.--filceolaire (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Rename to something about the case. The article should be about the event. Clea Rose herself is not notable. decltype (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, but Keep. Questions about this case were raised in the parliament of the Australian Capital Territory; I'd say that's clear evidence of notability. It had political ramifications, and was still being covered by the media up to two years after the event. It's arguable that the page needs to be updated, and probably moved back to Clea Rose case, but I don't see the case for deleting it. Robofish (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May DaCamara

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

This person is non-notable and does not meet WP:ARTIST as no reliable sources have been produced or can be found for this person to support the article apart from one self promotional website or un-official websites that are likely to be circular and self published. As a check, no Google News, no Google Books and no Google Scholar articles exist for this person. Wikipedia is not a resource to reprint self promotional literature as if it were encyclopaedic or notable. Ash (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. The subject may be notable for her association with a historically significant religious movement in the US. Not really self-promotional, since the subject has been dead for 33 years. The article is neutral in tone and decently written. It does not appear to be a type of WP:SPAM--the artist and her religious movement were most active in the 30s & 40s. While the article lack sources, but perhaps this can be remedied. More sources are listed at "I AM" Activity. One should also consider contacting the article's prime author directly to enquire. --Whoosit (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(note) As part of the normal AFD process the originator is notified and invited to comment in this discussion (see User talk:Sburke) so this has been taken care of.—Ash (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

→Important to point out the related debate on her collaborator Charles Sindelar, above. This has generated quite some discussion. I feel AfD for these two should be discussed and decided upon together, as the contention--artistic or other notability--is essentially the same. --Whoosit (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all I could find online were wikipedia mirrors, directory listings, none which could substantiate the notability of the subject. She doesn't even get a mention in the article "I AM" Activity, from which I must conclude it should be deleted rather than merged. Ohconfucius (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, unreferenced New seeker (talk) 14:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The fact that it needs work and references is not grounds for concluding that it is non-notable. Racepacket (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (note) The deletion nomination was not based on whether the article needed work or references, it was based on an actual lack of available reliable sources to demonstrate notability as checked by a lack of such sources on the normal Google Books, News and Scholar searches.—Ash (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I would say merge, but I don't really see where it can be merged. It seems to lack sources indeed. --Cyclopia (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I couldn't find any decent sources either. Looking back at the article's historyh, some of it seems to have been based on a weird self published religious website that clearly fails WP:RS. Much of it seems to have no source and might be OR. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the point is, this is a very influencial painter who created the famous "I AM" Presence painting and relate paintings, which has been adapted through many theosophical and newage subgroups; hardly anyone knows who painted those, and I actually started to attribute her work in my online activities. It's a shame there is no page where people can find the page on her and unable to EXTEND it and provide more information about her. By removing the page the risk that her work (quite known) isn't credited properly - because hardly any information can be found on her. A kind of chicken/egg problem - but at least at Wikipedia anyone can add information and bootstrap useful information. So - please put it back and wait for 6 months and see what happens. There are mindless TV episodes featured on Wikipedia but an influencial but fairely unknown artist can't have a page at Wikipedia? -- 20 November 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.4.84.164 (talk) 16:09, 21 November 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, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tita Datu Puangco

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

fails WP:BIO , blatant self promotional piece with the only reference being a self published source. hardly anything in gnews [117]. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a CV. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not finding adequate sourcing in Google, Google News or Google Books--I doubt it exists. (Subject is not to be confused with "Klaatu barada nikto"). JohnWBarber (talk) 04:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure why this would be confused with Klaatu barada nikto, but the article is promotional with inadequate sources. JUJUTACULAR | TALK 15:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Not enough to establish importance. GlassCobra 15:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Bluemask (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://sourceforge.net/projects/znc/files/, click 0.074 near the bottom
^ http://sourceforge.net/projects/psybnc/files/

[1] ttps://sourceforge.net/projects/znc/files/, click 0.074 near the bottom

[2] ttps://sourceforge.net/projects/psybnc/files/

[1]

[2]