Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 May 4: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:43, 4 May 2010

< 3 May	5 May >

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 speedy keep: bad-faith nomination by an account that has subsequently been blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie Starr

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

fails WP:CRYSTAL and it is about a reality tv star User:VaginicaWestwood (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many Google news mentions [1], and appearances on national television programs beyond reality show. Does need third-party sources. JNW (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to the template, didn't this just go through AFD, with a 'keep' result? Apparently nominator has been blocked [2]. JNW (talk) 20:52, 4 May 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. — Scientizzle 14:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Brewton

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

Fails WP:BIO & WP:GNG. Two of the four external references are dead links, one is a primary source, and the other only mentions the name of the subject with no additional coverage. Searches show no secondary sources. Google Scholar shows papers written by the subject, but no coverage of the subject himself. Cptmurdok (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant WP:RS third-party source to indicate subjects notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not notable. One source was indicates unpublished original research for a college course.Novangelis (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable religious type. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:26, 7 May 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 SNOW delete. Jclemens (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Levis poker

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

Subject is a homemade game. No references. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Original author deprodded, so here we are. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please let us know when there's proof that it's "played by a lot of people in the Ottawa area". From what I can tell, it's poker for people who don't like to gamble, and whoever has the best hand wins. I'm not sure why anyone would want to fold their cards if there's no risk, although I'm sure that a point system of some sort has been thought up. We make up games the same way that we make up songs or draw pictures, and almost none of them get noticed. For each James Naismith or Irving Berlin or Pablo Picasso, there are a million creative people who simply had an interesting idea. If it's any consolation, a lot of people will read the article before it's deleted. Mandsford (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline speedyable, with barely any credible assertion of notability, let alone sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Alas, the "assertion of notability" clauses do not apply to games. ErikHaugen (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - And I'd add that the key word in Jamie's statement is "credible" assertion of notability. Anyone can assert notability (I'm notable, just ask me), but the key is whether one can demonstrate it, whether it's a game or anything else that isn't inherently notable. Mandsford (talk)
    - I think wrt A7 and A9, 'credible' means 'plausible'. So if the article said that levis poker was a popular game, that would be credible, even though you and I don't really believe it. Even if A7 included games, you still wouldn't be able to CSD it if it said that. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. ??? why not? What does apply? David V Houston (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "why not?" - See wp:csd - a7 applies to "individuals, animals, organizations, web content", a9 is similar for "musical recordings." I think the rationale here is that those categories have a lot of non-notable new pages, and allowing CSDs for them is a necessary evil for reducing the number of afds/prods? Ideally they'd go through prod, but because there are just too many of them, we unfortunately have to allow CSDs to be used? I'm not sure. A quote from the CSD talk page: "it's a crass exception to our fundamental policy." I'm pretty sure that is the point being made - it's a big deal that nonjibberish/nonvandalism is being deleted w/out a discussion like this one. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "What does apply?" - I don't believe any CSD criteria apply to this article, or I would have CSDed it. I'd like a CSD criteria for "0 chance of surviving afd" but it seems that is what the community has decided wp:prod is for. ErikHaugen (talk) 23:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete a classic WP:NFT case, and so obviously wrong for an encyclopedia that yes, it really should have been speedied even if it requires the mighty IAR to do so. The last sentence is a real gem though: "all names here have given their permission to be on the internet. If certain names are not on here they have not been asked yet." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was beaten to the punch prodding this article. There is quite simply no assertion that this game is played outside the circle that invented it. Textbook WP:MADEUP case. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:RS. Quite literally WP:MADEUP (which used to be titled "Things made up in school one day" because of this sort of thing). --Closeapple (talk) 00:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: One reference was just added... something from weebly.com. Not exactly what WP:RS was meant for. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 6 May 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) 19:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oakville Academy for the Arts

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

This article is about an arts school that has no coverage in reliables sources to establish notability. There is no sources in the article, and I can find none in my own searches. It makes a claim as "Best Dance School in Oakville", "Best Music School", and "Best Preschool" for 2008. This may refer to this. These are reader's choice awards from the Oakville Beaver, a local community paper. These awards aren't significant and don't establish notability. Whpq (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Secondary coverage is insignificant.--Pink Bull 21:42, 10 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Eyes Have It (Book)

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

Disputed prod. Despite a good faith search I can find no sources to confirm the notabality of this book. No point in redirecting to the author as the "(Book)" part of the title makes it an unlikely search term. Dpmuk (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kevin Lee despite the nom's concerns, which can be fixed with a simple fix on the disambiguation page The Eyes Have It. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:22, 4 May 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. — Scientizzle 14:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Kong Tin

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

Delete. Non notable person. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish this person is a notable video game artist. -- Whpq (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability. Per nom. ELs say very little. — Hellknowz ▎talk 23:58, 6 May 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. — Scientizzle 14:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pravoslav Dzudzjäk Brescher

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

BLP prod implicitly contested with primary sources. Painter with no assertion of notability, possible COI in the article. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NOTABILITY, probably self-promotion. Claritas (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GregJackP (talk) 19:35, 4 May 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) 02:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Hartman

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

I don't believe that Hartman is mentioned sufficiently in reliable sources to meet the requirements on notability. I propose that this article be deleted, an article on the group Hartman heads, Fairness Campaign, be created (currently redirects to Hartman), and Hartman redirect to that article. The group, which has no article, is more notable than its current leader, Hartman. ← George^talk 18:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commment - I'm the one that made the list at of potential sources at Talk:Chris Hartman#Hangon, but I admit that I'm not an expert on what which of the sources are reliable or how much coverage is considered sufficient coverage in this situation. I just knew that there were more sources available. I'm fine with at least this discussion about how to proceed. Some links are primary sources, but others—namely wave3.com, whas.com, fox41.com, time.com, wlky.com, courier-journal.com, and kentucky.com—are legitimate, mainstream news outlets. I agree that Fairness Campaign should probably have an article, but I'm not sure that merging them is the correct approach. Hartman has been politically involved before becoming director of the Campaign—at least in John Yarmuth's campaign—and likely will be afterward. It is probably true that most of the sources are related to Fairness work, so I understand the rationale for merge or deletion, but an individual can also be notable on their own and I'm not sure if statements attributed to a group's director should automatically get associated with the group. —Ost (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had done a quick Google news search, which only returns 7 hits for Chris (or Christopher) Hartman associated with Fairness Campaign. This is opposed to over 100 for the Fairness Campaign itself (it looked like several different movements used the name, so I added the term 'gay' to limit the results, but the underlying point is that the group is significantly more notable than the head).

And are we sure that the Christopher Hartman who worked for John Yarmuth is the same Chris Hartman that heads the Fairness Campaign? The source cited attributes the information to a blog, which no longer exists. Are there any sources that mention Hartman in the context of both? I couldn't find any, and it struck me as odd that the Hartman associated with the Fairness Campaign was almost always spelled 'Chris', while the one associated with the Yarmuth was almost always spelled 'Christopher'. I was only able to find 4 results that mentioned a Hartman in the context of Yarmuth, so I'm not sure how notable that is either.

To quote WP:N, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article," emphasis mine. I just don't think that Hartman has received significant coverage, as most cases where he's mentioned are just short blurbs, not actually describing or discussing him. ← George^talk 10:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Does not meet general notability guidelines. -Reconsider ! 10:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. --Epeefleche (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete, only author of content blanked article. Non-admin closure. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep-urinating

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

Unsourced neologism. ALI ^{nom nom} 17:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well, now I've searched Google News for everything. :) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nocturnal enuresis.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. It probably would be a good search synonym for nocturnal enuresis, the scientific term for wetting the bed (although this is supposed to be something different). Pretty much you need sources for something that nobody has ever heard of. Mandsford (talk) 19:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article's creator says they will go off and start their own wiki, and leave the article for deletion. (diff)ALI ^{nom nom} 21:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator also blanked the article, so I've sent to CSD. Will non-admin close this as soon as it's speedily deleted, assuming that is outcome. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 22:41, 4 May 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 Nomination withdrawn. Under the circumstances, I don't see a reason to check whether I should be changing my own !vote. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of the victims of the Albanian communist regime

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

Declined PROD without explanation. Topic seems like a major POV coatrack -- included in the list of "victims" are people who were given the death penalty and who died in prison. None of this is referenced. This seems fundamentally unencyclopedic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am withdrawing my nomination per my comments below and the full discussion. I reserve the right to re-nominate in the future should the article not get to a better place, but it seems to me that there are some good ideas (re-titling, reworking scope of article, etc.) below and some willingness to put them into place. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only reference is an editorial that denounces one of the events that brought people onto this list. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are found. Keep, since there are improvements being made on the article. I think that whatever POV concerns come up are solved by a change of title. Even without trying to translate the source material into English on Google translate, it's clear that it's not the source of the names on the list. Of the 77 people listed, I'm sure that many of them were prominent in Albania, but we aren't told anything about them. Mandsford (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2010
Help explain me what i need to improve? --Vinie007 12:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Response OK, you are going in the correct direction. Number one, locate more citations for the names (internet? encyclopedia? magazine? etc.), whether written in English or in Shqip (Albanian). Number two, identify and explain who these people were (politician? dissident? etc) and what year they died (1946? 1986? etc). The proper English wording is something I can help with. Mandsford (talk) 13:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Nom I think an article on Suppressive Actions by the Albanian Communist Regime (or similar) is appropriate. A "List" of "victims" has the double problem of being both less useful and more prone to NPOV violations. The new section being added ("The Massacre of 1958") is not appropriate for inclusion in a list, naturally. Re-title and fundamentally rework and this is a good article. A list of victims leaves open the question of what makes someone a victim of the regime, which is a very serious question. Additionally, this list can never be complete -- that is almost literally impossible.
Lists are usually of very easily, obviously determined things. Does that make sense? Why not re-work this as an article on Albanian Communist Regime Repression and explore the actual history of the event(s) rather than just listing names? That would be far more interesting and less problematic. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 18:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be serieus, a dead penalty because you are a enemy of state is a victim i think! --Albanian222 (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is a stub and will be improved, but already we have plenty of references. As the article will be under the Albania TF, we will bring plenty of additional references to keep the article. Can it be renamed? Yes, possibly, but this is not an AfD. There were 10k estimated victims in Albania, be it for Propaganda, be it for tresspassing the borders of Albania. And then we have the killings of the intellectuals without any trial or the purges of communist politicians, or the purges of dissidents. However this is not an article to be deleted but a good start to represent the Repression of the Communist regime. Mind you, in this list will be included a list of killed catholic priests which are being considered for sainthood from the Vatican, so deletion is at least controversial. I agree though that we have to improve the article with more books and less newspaper articles. --_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 11:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There were "10k estimated victims"? So you're saying this list will be incomplete until you list and cite 10,000 people? I actually had no idea the number was that large when I nominated this, and that it is apparently that large makes me all the more certain this list can't possibly work. We don't have articles with names like "List of Victims of Stalin's Purges" for good reason. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is kind of surprising, in that we have Category:Great Purge victims with 170 entries. Needless to say, there would have to be some guidelines as to who would be included on any such list. Generally, these are limited to notable persons who already have their own article. Although "it's potentially endless" is a common rhetorical argument (I've used it myself), nobody actually expects that any list will include any and every person who ever fit the description. We have plenty of groupings, like List of people from Kentucky, that have a clear statement of purpose and boundaries. My only problem with this list is that it needs some type of boundary. Mandsford (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. If we use notability as a starting point, though, as far as I can tell it excludes everybody on the list. What non-problematic alternatives exist? I'm very sincerely not on a mission to get this topic deleted, I just haven't seen any solid ideas for how this list is workable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of people without a proces or a fake proces. In that time not everyone was executed for propaganda proposes or enemy of state!--Albanian222 (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a list of "victims." This is the problem. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 16:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok let's change the title than! --Albanian222 (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a change of title is the first step and an easy one, and that there should be some limitations (dissidents, politicians, cabinet ministers). The English-language Wikipedia has relatively few articles about the history of nations like Albania, so I'm for encouraging any development along that line, and for assisting in such things as choosing the appropriate words (suffice to say that Vinie007's understanding of the English language is better than my understanding of the Albanian language). The overwhelming majority of our contributors are from the U.S.A., the U.K., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc., so Wikipedia has developed a large body of work on their histories, as well as for places in Africa and Asia where English is an official language. Since many of our contributors have a working understanding of Spanish, French, German, etc., we're a better source than most reference services for Latin American and Western European history. In any event, gather the information. Folks like I will help bring it up to code. Mandsford (talk) 12:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there seems to be significant good faith willingness to work on this article and bring it to a place where it'll be less problematic and certainly very useful (per Mandsford's thinking above), I'm going to withdraw my nomination. I'll leave a message for BlanchardB above to see if he's willing to reconsider his own delete vote, at least for the time being and, if so, we can see about closing this AfD early. I'm not promising that I won't re-nominate should the article not change along the lines of what Mandsford's talking about -- there needs to be a very specific set of boundaries for inclusion in this list. Heck, I still think this needs to be an actual article and not a "list," per se -- I don't see as much use for a list of names as I do for an encyclopedic exploration of the event(s) -- but a list with proper boundaries, as above, seems fine to me. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 14:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My Shortest Death

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

Orphaned, irrelevant to knowledge base 83.64.213.124 (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails WP:NFILM. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 17:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as possible G4 recreation of deleted article Her Shortest Death. See former article at Wikibin. See previous AFD discussion. A slightly different name. Same film topic. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Flood Runner 2

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

Dime-a-dozen online flash game, no third-party references. Delete. (Contested WP:PROD.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. GregJackP (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this web game. Joe Chill (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it doesn't matter how popular the game is, if there are no secondary sources. Marasmusine (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable flash game, traffic stats are not of significance here. Only reliable source I could find is [3] but has minimal info. — Hellknowz ▎talk 00:06, 7 May 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) 02:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rufus Griscom

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

Internet businessman who does not seem to meet WP:NOTABILITY, although his website Babble.com seems to be reasonably notable. Article has been in current state for four years. The article does not cite any sources, and all I can find through Google books is [4] and [5], which are pretty borderline. Concerning the previous AFD consensus, I am not sure whether the individual's historical coverage is necessarily related to current notability. Claritas (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - though notability is not temporary, this person's fame is tied to Nerve (website) and Babble.com and the article lacks sources to verify or establish notability. Since coverage of the person does not extend much beyond that, I would argue to delete or possibly redirect to Babble.com.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dude who made a website, but of whom there's really nothing that can be said, in an encyclopedic context anyway. Redirecting to his website is an option, but I feel that would set rather a bad precedent. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep head of a notable website is notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)![reply]
Delete per WP:BURDEN: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Reliable sources have published material on Babble.com and Nerve, but not Rufus Griscom. Also see WP:NOTINHERITED: "Similarly, parent notability should be established independently; notability is not inherited 'up', from notable subordinate to parent, either: not every manufacturer of a notable product is itself notable." — Satori Son 14:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. As above, notability can not merely be inherited from his website without anything more. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tim Song (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Bratty

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

Queried speedy delete. He may be a bit noteworthy in Ulster matters. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This page was speedy delete tagged "it is nothing but gossip, weaselry and allegations, without a single source or reference after all this time thus making notability questionable. When tainted text is removed nothing but a useless stub remains. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 13:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless somehow transformed before end of AfD -- The article was created in February 2007. It is the responsibility of the article's creator to ensure that the article is not in violation of any policies or requirements, in this case WP:SOURCES, WP:WEASEL and WP:OR. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 17:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Joe Bratty certainly shows up quite a bit in Google Books, but I'm a bit wary on books about Northern Ireland history because there's several different versions of the history. Nevertheless, if the factual claims in the article can be verified, I didn't see that much weaselry and OR to remove. Having said that, I'm wary about leaving articles on obscure Troubles figures lying around, because they'll be easy targets for future one-sided editing if no-one's watching closely. Is there anywhere suitable we could merge this? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just about. I must declare from the start that south Belfast is my native area and for as long as I can remember Joe Bratty was about as notorious a name as they came. His activity in the UDA was long and bloody and as such I think he was notable in terms of his impact on the Troubles. I have also rewritten the article on the basis of the reliable sources available at hand to me (apologies for any typing errors in there but I'm in a bit of a hurry) but I reckon I could work on it further over time as there is plenty of coverage out there. Keresaspa (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep, I'm a little leery about the current references, are they books or what? I'm willing to lend a hand with bringing it up to speed, but it's be a few days. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're books [6], [7], [8], [9]. Not sure what else they could have been to be honest! Keresaspa (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 00:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please take another look, I think it's cleaner now and pretty well referenced. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as revised. Does appear to have enough coverage now, and looks reasonably balanced. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements made in the article. I was just about to close it that way but decided to !vote instead. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Notability isn't in question, NPOV concerns appear to have been addressed, no further deletion arguments have been put forth. Shimeru (talk) 00:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program

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

WP:SOAPBOX, article created by sockpuppet of year-banned user ChildofMidnight (talk · contribs) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see anything overtly POV in the article, and if there is something I'm missing, then it should be fixed. I agree that block evasion is completely unacceptable, but if the article is taken separate from the creator, then it appears to be a notable federal program with independent, reliable sources that cover it. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The soapboxing I saw was "The program was approved in 2004 under the Republican presidential administration of George W. Bush with support from Republican congressional majorities, and was allowed to expire in 2009 by a Congress controlled by Democratic Party majorities and an end of funding in the budget proposals of the Barack Obama administration." If it hadn't been block evasion, I probably would have just dropped that line, but between the block evasion, the lack of sourcing for most of the article, and the lack of incoming links that weren't added by CoM, deletion seemed best to me.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have rewritten a good deal of it in an attempt to cut out the POV and partisan shenanigans that were going on. I profousely apologize for claiming not to see POV before, as something as ridiculous as putting (D) after someone's name should have tipped me off right away. That being said, I have tried to combat it, and stand by my keep, as I think the first sentence of the article gives its notability as a first-of-its-kind federal program. It would seem also that where the sourcing seems sparse, the citation was meant to cite the whole paragraph. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep of sufficient permanent historic interest. Conflict over the wording of an article is not reason to delete it, and it seems not to have the earlier problems. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I'm willing to userfy it for you if you'd like, although there wasn't much there. Shimeru (talk) 00:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh Vipers

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

might be notable once established but lacks significant coverage today. Should be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL and recreated once suffient information and reliable sources are available to create an encyclopedic article. RadioFan (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For the record, the prod was contested with the following comment from the original creator: no leave it here i was the one who went out to create and tyou go out there and try and delete it who do you think you are god or something once the amnrl season more will be known about the team! --RadioFan (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete They are not as yet (it would appear) notable, nor may they ever be. There is some limited coverage they exsist but nothing establishing any kind of notability.Slatersteven (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently it's a "nor may they ever be", judging by the 2010 schedule [10]. Not enough to justify its own article. Mandsford (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thats the 2009 season, great site, its all a year or more old.Slatersteven (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Silly me. Mandsford (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete gnews says that it'll play this season. Andewz111 (talk · contribs) (typo intended) 20:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the amnrl season is only about a month away and more will be known can we just wait until then if nothing comes out when the amnrl season kicks off then it can be deleted.Youndbuckerz (talk) 09:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Notability must come first then the Wikipedia article may be created. All this being said, should sufficient coverage in 3rd party sources become available once the season begins there is no reason why the article could not be created then. The existing article has nothing that needs to be saved.--RadioFan (talk) 11:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

so does that mean once the season starts and i can get details about their 2010 squad and what venue they will play at, coach etc.. does that mean it can be recreated (if it gets deleted)Youndbuckerz (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they recive coverage then yes, if not then no.Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is that there is insufficient significant coverage to keep this article. Tim Song (talk) 03:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Rachor

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

This person is a business executive whose notability is not expressed in this article. A Google search turns up press releases about his appointment to various high positions in notable companies and sometimes about good but unspecified business decisions he has made.

I would propose a merge, but being a former CEO of a notable company may not be worth merging to other articles, especially when lists of former employee lists are not usually normal for articles like those.

I do not doubt that this person is able in his field; I just see no evidence to support the idea that he contributed in such a way that merits his own article in Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry 14:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - mentioned in Forbes, bizjournals.com, "First Saturn Dealer Picked". Times Daily (Alabama). November 20, 1989. - and 123 more GNews hits, which clearly meets GNG. (GregJackP (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Weak delete - passing mentions aren't quite significant coverage, sources given do not appear sufficient to verify notability.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep CEO pof a significant company, significant enough that Forbes writes an article when he resigned. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Forbes and other articles only state he resigned and who replaced him, no mention of why he left or what he accomplished in the one year he headed Pep Boys. Same lack of detail/notability about his other positions. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Companies employ managers. No big deal. See WP:MILL Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 17 May 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) 19:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Conservative Camp

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

By all appearances, this is just another non-notable blog promoted by its author. Googling "the consevative camp" mostly brings up the phrase used in the general sense, not referring to this website. No real sources. R. fiend (talk) 14:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, promotional.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The site is becoming very notable in conservative political circles and the conservative blogosphere. There are over 55,000 backlinks on the Internet that refer back to The Conservative Camp or cite it as a source for articles, news, etc. While it is not a huge site as yet, it is rapidly growing in terms of doubling for the past three months alone. That trend appears to be continuing. This site is just as notable as many sites already listed in Wikipedia, such as Raising Kaine (a liberal site),Probush.com,Sabato's Crystal Ball, GamePolitics.com,Michigan Liberal, and several others that are in Wikipedia. Many of these sites are either small or independent and with far fewer backlink referrals and citations than The Conservative Camp. It is also noted that there are far more liberal sites in Wikipedia than there are conservative sites.RJDCC (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, G11.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source Citations for this site:

Much more sourcing information can be added to what is briefly listed here. No regular backlinks have event been bulleted in this list, as there are tons of them. However, they can be backlinked to this site for credibility. The site should not be deleted.RJDCC (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that someone has deleted several of the sources that were originally on the article's page. It also appears that all references have been deleted by someone. There was also a revision done earlier today to the site to make it objective, but the original content is now listed back up on the site and the revision is deleted by someone. Did someone accidently take off the external references to the subject matter in the article and then identify it as spam? It looks like that happened in the history and it appears to be an attempt to make the article appear to not be getting fixed by the author to meet objective compliancy.RJDCC (talk) 20:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, unless some reliable sources can be used to footnote its myriad claims. I don't see the point of the list of ELs above, by the way. Huw Powell (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list is showing the site's backlinks, however, it is obvious that the Wikipedia administrators are going to do all in their power to prevent this conservative site from being featured in an article, regardless of the respect it is receiving in the conservative online community. I have seen this happen with other conservative sites, such as Intellectual Conservative, Red County, etc. Wikipedia seems to favor the liberal website articles with far less pushback than it does with conservative sites. This site does deserve its feature on Wikipedia and should not be deleted, however, it is not going to be worth the argument with the individuals who are trying to censor the site. That is too bad.RJDCC (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I wrote about notability on the talk page? There has to be press attention, basically, not just 55,000 other websites linking to the site. This is not "censorship". When the site becomes notable via reliable sources covering it, then it will have an article. Huw Powell (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice - if it achieves third-party verifiability, it can be recreated when there's verifiable evidence anyone cares - David Gerard (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep* , in response to an earlier entry on this discussion about googling "the conservative camp," it appears that while this is a "general phrase (over 5 million or so entries in google on said subject), there are a lot of sites that are specifically referring to The Conservative Camp. In fact, the very first link in google upon entering that phrase is the site being debated here. I am not sure what is being missed but I think thissite is a fully informational site that must have an audience of some worthiness to be cited so often by other sites. TkE22 06:43, 5 May 2010 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.116.185 (talk • contribs) reality check. There is no "user:Tke22" Huw Powell (talk) 03:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is as well as may be, but Wikipedia needs reliable sources reporting on a topic to have an article on it. Being "popular" on the web is not enough. Huw Powell (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because, while it may have a high volume of sites linking to it and it may link to a high volume of sites, there is nothing in the article that establishes this blog from the hundreds of other political blogs out there that could say the same thing, and yet don't have a Wikipedia article. Unless this article can establish how this site is discernible from the many, many other blogs in cyberspace, I feel it is not noteworthy enough for Wikipedia. PunkyMcPunkersen (talk) 03:31, 6 May 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) 02:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BugNET

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

Non-notable software product. I have been unable to find any significant coverage, and the one source given in the article is a blog entry which doesn't mention this product. Haakon (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This is a bug tracking system and customer support issue tracking system. Back office software for tech businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added the page. I see no justification for the delete nomination. I am not the creator of BugNET. I added the BugNET page so links from comparison tables had some place to go and allow users to find the home page. The linked home page describes BugNET appropriately and has links to Features, FAQ, Downloads, Forum. A Google search will show this is a legitimate FOSS product. I based the page on BugTracker.NET which is a different but similarly specified product. GregDude (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lots more description has been added and source referenced by myself and others. GregDude (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The justifications cited above ( 1. a place for wikilinks to go, 2. aid to finding the software's web site, 3. the content of the software's web site, and 4. the software exists), are all irrelevant to the issue of notability. See the general notability criteria for guidance. Davnor (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also reads a bit like an advertisement, which is perhaps inevitable as there's very little to say about it otherwise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nomination. Davnor (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (weak) (non-admin closure) moɳo 00:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Radulović

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

She is a local minor celebrity, there is as yet no real encyclopedic value in giving her an article. Yes, she gained some prominence in a local reality show, and I see her almost every night in a prime-time Zagrebačka banka commercial on HRT, and yes, some random group of Index.hr viewers called her the prettiest Croatian at some point, but that still isn't notable for English Wikipedia, IMHO. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Agree with the nom, generally speaking. WP:GNG argument could still be made, but only just. GregorB (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Barbara Radulović seems to be a well known Croatian TV personality and celebrity, there is plenty of coverage in reliable Croatian media: nacional.hr, dalje.com, tportal.hr, nacional.hr, net.hr etc. In my opinion, this person meets our criteria for inclusion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be honest, I don't like this kind of so-called local "stars", however, Wikipedia doesn't work according to my tastes and opinions, it should cover all important topics, events and people in the world. The fact, that I don't like something doesn't mean that it isn't worthy of mention. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I actually like her. :) It's just that she doesn't seem to have done anything that would be relevant to an encyclopedia, even a liberal one like Wikipedia. Sure, the press follows her around and writes about her, even reliable sources in the press can cover her occasionally, but is there any worthwhile content other than stuff that boils down to advertizing? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at Paris Hilton, Joy. Is there any worthwhile content? Those articles should be kept as monuments of vanity of today's world :) I'm oversimplifying here. I'm aware of it. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Paris Hilton surely meets WP:GNG and WP:MUSIC. Ultimately this is (or should be) a matter of policy (i.e. its interpretation) rather than personal preference. I'm myself barely aware of Barbara's existence - it's simply that sporadic media coverage of her does not add up. Which is a judgment call, I freely admit. GregorB (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'~~Delete~~', only because as the article stands now it is a violation; a word for word translation from the source provided under "external links" (*[11] Croatian stars website). If someone creates a well-written wikified article I have no problem changing to keep. Thanks. Turqoise127 (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to weak keep as I promised per Milowent's adjustments and numerous added sources. "weak" keep because there is some validity to Joy's comment below. Turqoise127 (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reassessing. Clearly more notable than our favorite Croatian translator, I'd submit.--Milowent (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt. Also good looking, unlike that ugly mug. My initial delete was only because it was a word for word copyright violation, you know very well I prefer inclusion of knowledge into the project. Turqoise127 (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this translator person you are talking about? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kresimir Chris Kunej, an article Turqoise127 has labored over.--Milowent (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I added some cites to the article and edited the text a bit. Vjesnik and Novi List are major Croatian papers. Nacional is a newsweekly. She is also covered regularly in other tabloid Croatian papers like 24 sata. I can't say where she falls in the hierachy of Croatian celebrities, but she certainly has enough coverage for inclusion.--Milowent (talk) 05:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The way I read the intent of Wikipedia:Notability#Self-promotion and indiscriminate publicity is that if someone's occupation is to make promotional appearances in the media, to promote themselves or some media event that they are a part of, then the coverage of that in itself cannot be a sufficient proof of notability. I mean, I'd have the same issue with e.g. Oliver Mlakar, had he not have had an overwhelming popularity locally and at least some international exposure. If we accept an individual article about Barbara Radulović, then we have to accept individual articles about practically all Croatian news media personalities, and that would lead to a lot of, well, fodder. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If they have gobs of news coverage like this person, i have no problem with them having articles. If they are just a newshost or journalist who is not ever written about themselves, that is one thing. We have thousands of articles on people who have not had 1/10th the news coverage of this person. I see no benefit to the project to be had by deletion.--Milowent (talk) 02:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - she is "famous for being famous," and we have kept dozens of such articles as being notable persons. Deletion of this would be another horrible precedent. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward A. Vincent

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)

Delete. Ordinary surveyor whose name is mentioned only peripherally in connection with a few surveys by outside sources. Sounds pretty much like someone's ancestor (genealogy) rather than real notability. Student7 (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article has appropriate period (19th century) references. The fact that he receives mention in contemporary media as well, although not used in the article, [12] speaks to his notability as does the building of a replica of his original design of the Atlanta Depot for the Stone Mountain Park Depot in 1987. Given the level of interest in anything related to the Civil War and the antebellum South in particular, I believe readers may well be interested in him. (He mapped both the cities of Atlanta and Savannah prior to Sherman's March through Georgia, both of which survive. [13]) Soapbox: I know this isn't the place but this is what is wrong with wikipedia. If it can't be click click seen, it is likely to be gone. Some ace detective/ Civil War buff has gone to a tremendous amount of effort tracking down sources to chronicle an amazing historical individual (He died at age 30!) for wikipedia and it's about to be nixed. "Notability is not temporary: a topic needs to have had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guideline, but it does not need to have ongoing coverage."[14] Yeah right. Eudemis (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary. The Union Depot was probably the most significant antebellum building in Atlanta, and one of the most significant in the South when Sherman burned the place down. It was notable enough to be rebuilt in replica He is well-documented in the media of the time, and was clearly notable in 1853 for multiple reasons in several places. His documentation of antebellum Atlanta and Savannah is a significant historical resource and reference. Acroterion _(talk) 21:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I am the author of this article and have spent some time reading over the notability page. To better satisfy those requirements, I have added additional sources. I plan to add the AJC article referenced by Eudemis once I can see the actual newspaper. Submitting this information to Wikipedia is part of a longer process that involves writing a paper about him in my graduate studies and submitting a substantial paper about him to the Georgia Historical Quarterly for peer reviewed publication. I think adding information about the re-purposing of his maps during the Civil War, as well as the replica at Stone Mountain, will make for a better article. Vincent is a difficult character to get to know because his family is unknown, he had no children, and his life was cut short right at the beginning of his career. He was a notable figure in Georgia from 1852 to 1854 and scholars have returned to his work repeatedly over the last 100 years. Paul K. Graham (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Vincent's work, though brief, is important to early Atlanta and Savannah history, and his life is difficult to research. This is an important entry. At this point, it seems that there is more to come, and I, for one, would like to know what it is. I vote to keep this entry. Deborah E. Harvey, 7 May 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharvey8 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The article is unbiased and has direct relevance to the history of the antebellum South. It allows others interested in the Civil War history of Georgia to add sources that may otherwise lack context. The author has gone to great lengths to provide that context and I hope this will inspire more research on historical figures whose contributions have gone unnoticed. Chapmanmb (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)MChapman[reply]
Keep I just found this page from a Google search for Edward A Vincent, I had seen his name on a directory of maps at the archives.gov and wanted to determine if he was the cartographer on a map I had found in College Park back in 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.38.134.150 (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The extensive research done on Vincent is of great importance to anyone doing research on the early development of Atlanta, Macon, and Savannah. I am also looking forward to seeing what future research on Vincent will uncover. Marycatharine (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGF Keep. Of course, we cannot check online for references that are more than 100 years old, but the article does assert that such sources do exist. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While I'm concerned that two of the above might be SPAs, I would like to assume Acroterion knows what they are talking about in asserting that the building is a notable landmark in pre-war Atlanta. With that in mind, I'd prefer to bring up WP:PAPER, and keep the article pending further sources. Coincidentally, I just read about Sherman's March last night! (I'm Canadian, so it's less likely than it might sound.) - BalthCat (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Vincent's depot was the inspiration for the entrance to the Mall of Georgia. Paul K. Graham (talk) 13:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm quite comfortable with the simple fact that the person is remembered, although locally (his building has been recreated near Stone Mountain - I added reference). A more general note: keep in mind that our subject belonged to a fast-growing culture that was cut down by a war; people who shaped it simply did not have a whole life to practice their art. Coverage of antebellum history (and similar short-lived cultures elsewhere) will be very very incomplete if limited only to unconditionally notable people. East of Borschov (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:40, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ART ATHINA

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

Lack of notability, and numerous unresolved issues (including noref, advert, and orphan). Article sounds almost like an advert for the said topic, by including dates, times and places. Previous PROD was removed. _Will^Dow (Talk) 11:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Google News and Books searches linked above find loads of coverage in independent reliable sources, so the subject clearly passes the general notability guideline. The other issues mentioned by the nominator are reasons for editing, not for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep See artfacts.net, CBC News, Press TV etc. etc., as above said. A notable European art event. The article needs work, of course. Similarly as 3.150.000 articles at this project. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but expand and cleanup. Sources given by Vejvančický seem sufficient to establish notability. Article needs major work done though.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added several stats and refs to assist in meeting notability. AllyD (talk) 20:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable art event with a very respectable amount of press coverage. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to United Kingdom general election, 2010. Shimeru (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Sood

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

- This has been the main story on major UK News programmes all day today, and is likely to become a significant point in History in terms of recapping the election Campaign. Given that senior Political figures on all sides have commented on this story, I feel it should be kept.

A politician notable for nothing other than being an electoral candidate, thus not notable per WP:POLITICIAN Mattinbgn\^talk 10:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. He's notable for his comments as per paragraph above. He'd be notable for these comments whether he was a polician or not. Therefore WP:POLITICIAN is argueably irrelevant. --Rebroad (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has made the AP (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gahKY7HXorsj8sIK4aQIout6N5Jw) with his story, the BBC (cited in the article), and the Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brown-worst-ever-pm-says-labour-candidate-1961848.html), not just as part of the article, but as the headline. jptreen —Preceding undated comment added 11:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Keep. His comments had some relevance for the campaign. --82.181.95.21 (talk) 12:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this is a clear case of WP:ONEEVENT. Any useful info from this stub should be included in North West Norfolk (UK Parliament constituency) as is standard practice per WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It depends. If he still stands as an independent, having been sacked by Labour, then I say keep, and, obviously if he wins the seat, however unlikely it may have seemed until now (he could get a shock sympathy vote), or even just beats Labour, I suggest that the article is kept. Otherwise, Merge into constituency as per Valenciano's suggestion.--Vox Humana 8' 15:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pending - will have to make decision based on election results (which could make this AfD moot if elected, if not, then there's room for debate).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A lot will depend on whether this incident gets any attention after the election. However, if no further coverage comes up be the close of the debate, Merge and Redirect to United Kingdom general election, 2010 as a WP:BIO1E. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a day. In the unlikely event he wins election, obviously keep; otherwise, merge to North West Norfolk (UK Parliament constituency) (or United Kingdom general election, 2010) as a WP:BLP1E. Robofish (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's gotten a second round of major press for his refusal to attend his own vote count. Highly likley to be a search term for many, both now and in the future Vartanza (talk) 19:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - that's still just part of the elections and thus falls under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:POLITICIAN.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - District Councillor = NN; failed parliamentary candidate = NN. Summary NN. Being disowned by his own party during the election is hardly notable. I oppose merger with the constituency, because these articles have a lot of more substanive content. Possibly, some one will think it worth a brief mention in an article on the evnts of the election, but I doubt it. Will any one remember him in 6 months? Peterkingiron (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Protected against recreation. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PresentAll

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

Promotion for non-notable company. Has been speedied four times before (including as Presentall). There are no signs of notability that I have come across. Haakon (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt, and what we have now probably still qualifies for speedy deletion. The current text makes no minimal claim for the importance of this organization. It's mostly filler text burbling about the importance of video conferencing, not talking about this business at all: Some video conferencing software allows participants to participate in the webinar or web conference through audience interaction such as: polling, question and answer sessions, and joint presentation efforts. More than 40% of people in the U.S. workforce are taking fewer trips. More than 70% are interested in alternatives to travel. 63 percent rate access to collaboration technology as very important. Uses the non-word "webinar". - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with salt (but no vinegar) Two refs: One is the company, the other is about Web conferencing and doesn't mention the company. Nice summary description of Web Conferencing in the article, but precious little about the company. If the creator can find refs that prove to us that PresentAll is the ultimate in the field, fair enough. With four speedies, I feel that he is either not listening to the message, or that he just can't find any. Peridon (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt. I'll take Smerdis' G4 on faith, agree with the A7, and G11's also arguable. (For newer contributors, the alphabet soup refers to this policy).—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what would be needed to show that there are signs of notability. PresentAll has been published on numerous sites and this article was written as an informative article explaining that PresentAll is a web conferencing solution on the internet. There could be more detail added about PresentAll but the last time that effort was made the article was deleted for reasons of being slanted. I would like to comply with the rules but need a little help understanding what you would like to see. Please let me know what we can do to not be marked for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.240.145 (talk) 21:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CORP for the answer to this. Haakon (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the type of link that was just added with the information provided considered to be notable? I am sure I can put together whatever information is provided I just don't know exactly what I need to put in here. I appreciate your help in getting this resolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.240.145 (talk) 22:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete + Salt (and lots of it!) - Clearly non notable, spouts 200% rubbish about itself with a massive COI attached, bury it, burn it and soak with weedkiller. BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | _{My contributions} 22:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note I am not looking to start a fight with this question. What is the difference between the PresentAll posting and the posting about Yuuguu. Yuuguu did not get deleted. I am wondering what I need to do so that the PresentAll page will not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.103.240.145 (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the existence of other articles is not really all that strong of an argument, Yuuguu unfortunately has gotten reviewed by CNet and PCWorld, and current consensus seems to still be that such coverage is enough to pass muster. The current Yuuguu article does not really reflect that well, though. (I would have nominated it for deletion on your lead, but when I looked and found those texts I figured it may not be worth the bother. But we really need to set much higher and bright line barriers when it comes to promotional techcruft and back-office software.) At any rate, if you have reviews of your software in reliable publications outside the trade, the best thing to do would be to let us know about them. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 23:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per everyone, and in answer to the above about Yuuguu, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:25, 4 May 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) 19:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Dorr

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

Delete No evidence of notability or importance. The only reference is to an article in which the only mention of Mary Dorr is to tell us that she never had children, but reared her nieces after her sister died. (Note: Speedy deletion tag was removed with the edit summary "indicates at least some importance, as businesswoman, so not a speedy", which is absurd: everyone who runs a small business is not important.) JamesBWatson (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. De728631 (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MONOkuro

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

No significant coverage by reliable third party sources found. Fails WP:BK and WP:NOTE. Prod tag disputed. Deprodder claims that the only available third-party source is being used as a reference, however the publisher, Akita Shoten, is not a third-party source. —Farix (t | c) 10:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 10:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the prodder and nominator. – allen四names 16:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BK with no significant coverage in any reliable, third-party sources. Only sources are publisher site and a seemingly random blog post from a former retailer (not an identified expert). Does not meet WP:N nor WP:BK. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete a manga with only one volume, from an author we don't have an article on. About the only positive thing to be said here is that the publisher appears notable, but that just isn't enough on its own. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Could see remaking the article if/when the subject gains coverage in reliable sources. For now there's nothing reliable to make an article out of. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:08, 6 May 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. Tim Song (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Susumu Ueno

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

Delete No evidence of notability. The only references are to listings which establish his existence and the existence of his books, but give no indication of independent coverage or other evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Blair^{Speak to Me}/_Breathe 11:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article asserts him to be the author of standard textbooks, which would meet WP:PROF; unfortunately I know no way of really verifying this with my limited language skills. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, from a Google search I can see for example that his book on management accounting (the fifth item in the "main publications" section) has a few universities listing it as one of the books for some courses e.g. Osaka University [15], Shiga University [16], Tohoku University [17]). cab (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment The third book in the publications section seems to be in some use as well. I'm not sure whether they're in wide enough use that this guy meets PROF on that grounds, though. I suppose there's a valid argument for keeping the article. Shimeru (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article fails to explain why this person is notable. He has written textbooks, but there is no evidence that they are "standard." GS finds only one paper ("The influence of culture on budget control practices in the USA and Japan: An empirical study") which is cited 70 times. Using his Japanese name finds a handful of papers with 2 or 3 citations each. He may be notable, but the article doesn't indicate how he meets WP:PROF, and I can't find any evidence of notability with Google. Since this is an apparently autobiographical article, one assumes that the author has made the best possible case. He is president of the Asia-Pacific Management Accounting Association, but it's not clear whether that's actually a notable society (the article on that society carries a number of maintenance tags). -- Radagast 3 (talk) 10:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. G3 would seem to apply. Shimeru (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cunnofathing

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

WP:NEO and made up one day Shadowjams (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as hoax. Mangoe (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NEO. Joal Beal (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 00:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–Mongolia relations

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

This is a pointless article about an uninteresting relationship between two countries that are many thousands of kilometers apart and which aren't interested in each other enough to maintain mutual embassies. It has undergone PROD and AFD once before, and there has been no real change in content since the last time it was kept, in fact, it only got smaller. This topic has little to no potential and it simply doesn't qualify for a standalone article. Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few more intro comments: it doesn't really matter much now, but the original author of the article is a now-blocked sockpuppet account that seems to have created a flurry of similarly strange articles related to countries and peoples. Several other users worked on this article since, yet IMHO it remains as pointless as it was once it was first written. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hard to believe that it was only a year ago that we had the big debate over each of the Groubani articles, of which this was one, and the "call it off, call it off!" intervention by the task force for better pancakes, but even after the addition of some news about a stopover by a leader during a tour, and paying off of a mortgage (OK, it was a loan for $148,496 and 50 cents), I don't see anything that couldn't be thrown in to the foreign relations articles. There had been an initial push to rescue the Groubani articles, until people realized just how damn many (hundreds) that sock had cranked out. Mandsford (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No content here that can't more appropriately be covered in the existing articles on Croatia and Mongolia. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is no real ongoing relations here. a few limited visits, and a one off loan hardly relates in notable bilateral relations. yes the 2 presidents met in 2008 but it really needs to be a lot more than this to be a notable article. LibStar (talk) 01:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is about a bilateral relationship. There are reliable sources presented. But those sources analyse individual events, not the relationship as a whole. That is the critical distinction. Cobbling together coverage of individual events to form an article about a bilateral relationship amounts to synthesis (in its ordinary meaning more than its WP:NOR meaning). --Mkativerata (talk) 01:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources now present do actually talk about the overall relationshiop, even if the title would imply they are just about one event, e.g. [18]

Keep Loans, embassies, and official visits are what make up international relations. Relationships ads a whole are made up of particulars. DGG ( talk ) 09:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

did you even read this article? they don't even have embassies. the World Bank and IMF loan even more money to Mongolia than Croatia ever has, perhaps we should create World Bank-Mongolia relations. LibStar (talk) 00:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The US does not have an embassy in either Iran or Cuba or Bhutan or Taiwan or North Korea. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US does not have embassies in Iran, Cuba and North Korea because they have embargoes and not having diplomatic relations with those countries for a long time. US does not have an embassy in Taiwan after China insisted they didn't. Croatia and Mongolia have diplomatic relations and no embargoes. your argument is very weak. LibStar (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not oppose it. I do not see that I said that they have an embassy directly yet. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why did you mention embassies then? LibStar (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mkativerata said it better than I could. Quantpole (talk) 10:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mkativerata Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article on a relationship of so little interest to the two countries involved they don't care to exchange ambassadors. There are no non-trivial treatments of this relationship in reliable sources to be found.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mkativerata. If reliable sources aren't covering the relationship itself then neither should we. Yilloslime ^T_C 15:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC) More: I think this discussion highlights a fundamental difference between how editors interpret WP:N and, to a lesser extent, WP:OR. I read WP:N as requiring the existence of sources that address the topic itself. Sources on individual aspects of the topic are not sufficient, and assembling them into a treatment of the topic is WP:SYN. For example, let's say a reliable source mentions that John Doe coaches a little league team called the Cougars. Let's say a different news paper article, this one on Local Pizzeria, mentions that it sponsors the Cougars. Let's further suppose that the city Parks & Recs website has the team's wins and losses tabulated. And maybe a newspaper profile of the middle valedictorian mentions that he plays on the Cougars. Does all this add to the Cougars meeting WP:N. I'd argue no, because of none the sources address the Cougars directly or in detail, and I'd further argue that assembling into an article would require WP:OR, since there are no reliable secondary sources to guide article drafting. And I think this is pretty much what's going on with this article. Yilloslime ^T_C 23:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nominator and Mandsford. Joal Beal (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When an encylopedia article talks about repaying a loan that is about 5 times the size of my outstanding student loan debt, the best thing is to just delete it. Abductive (reasoning) 23:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Shame, shame, shame to "make it shrink" since it was last nominated. One can always pick the cherries out of a pie and then claim it is not a cherry pie. That does not mean the cherries cannot be properly returned to the pie... and make it even better than it was before. That the article was properly "kept" last time, is not a reason to whittle it to nothing and return it to AFD until it is finally deleted. I opined a keep at the last AFD due to considerable improvements that has been made that addressed concerns at that time. It should be kept, revereted to an earlier and properly encyclopedic version, and further improved to meet its WP:POTENTIAL through the opportunites presented in Google Scholar, Google News and Google Books, that could assist in further expansion and sourcing.... that is... if improvements will be allowed by those who would rather it not be here at all. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 14:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

shame shame shame, all your google scholar, books searches simply show multilateral relations where Mongolia and Croatia are mentioned with several other countries. you have not proven any significant coverage of actual bilateral relations. In fact this search you provided in Google News yields nothing, which makes me wonder if you even checked these searches beforely blindly posting here. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a reason to consider corecting the focus through regular editing, but not one for deletion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please provide evidence of specific coverage of actual bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - yet another vandalized article that has been nominated for deletion. This was kept last time in decent shape. Please save the best version of fix it before nominating again. Don't let the vandals win this one. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

please provide sources otherwise it's a WP:JUSTAVOTE, if you provide 10 non trivial sources, I will happily change my vote. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

Referring to the reasoned edits of others as vandalism is a failure to WP:AGF. You, me, Libstar, RAN--we may not always agree with each other, but I think it's evident that we all have the 'pedia's best interests in mind with our edits. Calling this a "vandalized article" isn't helpful. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not vandalism. But I note that many of those voting delete above are those same editors who wished it gone last time 'round, and some were/are themselves involved in "shrinking" the article to make it into what they claimed. Had it not been "shrunk" it would/should have had the same notability as established last time, thus making this a push to overturn that earlier consensus. And I am hearing the same reasons in argument as used before, but now used against a lessor article than what survived the last AFD. Sure, its not JUSTAVOTE, but it makes shrinking an article to support opinion of non-notability into a self-fulfilling prophecy. As it is... we do have the time to expand the article and further source it while this repeat of the last AFD is ongoing, and I appreciate that LibStar granted that improvemnets might change his mind. --Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw everything you mention post res, with fresh eyes, and yet I am convinced that all mentioned revisions of the article should be deleted because there is no real potential. If you actually read the nomination at the top you will see that I explicitly acknowledged the existence of an old version with more content, and by doing that and doing nothing about it I also implicitly acknowledged the removal of that content. The tangential story from several centuries ago that has no practical relevance to the relationship of countries today known as Croatia and Mongolia was rightly removed because it contributes nothing to the core of the article.

Hmm. All this circular contemplation is only adding to the sheer pointlessness of this article :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 09:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has coverage of various events between the nations, and we already had this discussion last year. And it is in bad taste that those who want to delete an article, who don't get their way, then go and delete parts of it after the AFD ends in keep. If you aren't interested in the content, then leave it alone. Surely you have something better to do than destroy other people's work. Dream Focus 10:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:JUSTAVOTE. this argument contains no description of how the article meets WP:N. again another keep vote with zero evidence of significant thrid party coverage. LibStar (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said in my opening sentence It has coverage of various events between the nations. There is significant coverage of anything involving these two countries already found in English sources, and if someone spoke the languages of the nations involved, they'd surely find more. Do you doubt that nations would have in their newspapers reports of their activities between countries? Dream Focus 20:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes I highly doubt it that there is enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. this has been listed in Croatian related AfDs since May 4 which would have been picked up by Croatian speakers. it is a very weak argument to say additional sources exist and not providing any evidence of it. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is highly doubtful that the relationship is viewed as important in either nation. The evidence is the lack of embassies and the total lack of secondary sources. Do you believe that every nation views its relationship with every other nation as important? Abductive (reasoning) 21:58, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many nations don't have embassies, since they can't afford it, or simply have no reason to have someone representing their interest there all the time. With modern communications and transportation being what it is, they could contact them whenever possible without the need for such things. Lack of an embassy does not indicate anything. Dream Focus 22:55, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have secondary sources to back up these claims? Abductive (reasoning) 23:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is not the dollar amount of a loan that determines notability, it is that reliable media took note of the loan and reported it. The article is sourced and has enough information for a stand alone article. There is no Wikipedia rule that says that relations have to be superlative to have an article. Superlative relations have multiple articles such as the US and Russia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is indeed no rule about superlatives, but there is an accepted standard of Wikipedia:Notability wher we require significant coverage. Reliable media also take note of everyone who gets born or gets hit by a bus in Croatia, but that still doesn't meet the standard of inclusion in a standalone English Wikipedia article. I don't see how a single dignitary visit (three days in passing over to China) is something that can be significantly covered, and a lack of mutual embassies despite two years having passed from that visit supports the notion that it wasn't a significant visit per se, so its coverage can't really be any more significant - at least not in this case. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, everyone covered with a biography in reliable media is notable by Wikipedia standards, but, we exclude people that are in the news only once, for a single event. That is the One Event clause of notability. What does that have to do with anything we are discussing here? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are fixating on the number, three days, rather than that it was reported in reliable media. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you ignore the rest of what I said? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". It meets that standard set out by Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disregarding for the moment my opinion on the spirit of that guideline; I still don't really see how it even meets the letter of guideline - none of the sources are really non-trivial coverage, because there is simply no real depth to the issues at hand that would warrant it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10 facts from 10 sources are mathematically identical to 10 facts from a 1 source. Wikipedia doesn't demand a single source for all the facts in an article, it actually discourages a single source article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A comparison with the other Foo-Mongolia relations articles reveals the utter poverty of the keep arguments in this AfD. Abductive (reasoning) 23:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are arguing the subjective importance. I am sure if we rank them all this would fall in the bottom third, but it still meets the Wikipedia requirements. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it falls at the bottom. The simple fact is that the topic of Croatia–Mongolia relations does not have what are called "secondary sources", which according to consensus are supposed to analyze the topic. Since no such source exists in any language, the topic must be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 21:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy states: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." I don't see any primary sources in the article, can you point one out to me? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is that topics without secondary sources are to be deleted. Primary sources are irrelevant. Abductive (reasoning) 21:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Wikipedia policy states: "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Your opinion is interesting, but I am quoting Wikipedia policy directly. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That out of context bit of text will not save this article from deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 05:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point out a forbidden primary source used in the article? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment none of the keep arguments have provided any evidence of substantial third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 07:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is in the article already, no reason for us to repeat it. Every fact in the article is referenced to a reliable source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Let me sum up the deletion arguments:

The article is Original Research. No, it is not. Wikipedia defines OR as: "material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources." For instance if I were to say that the meeting between dignitaries was "awesome" or was "embarrassing" or was "scary", that would be OR, because it is not in the original, it is me adding my personal interpretation. I don't see that anywhere in the article.

The article has no Significant Coverage in the references. Wikipedia defines SC as: "sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". Every fact is referenced and Wikipedia doesn't care if 10 facts come from one source or 10 facts come from ten sources. Mathematically they are identical. Wikipedia discourages single source articles and we have a tag for that:

The article uses only Primary Sources. No primary sources are used at all. A primary document would be a transcript of the meeting, or a copy of a signed agreement, or a photograph of two leaders shaking hands. All the sources are news agencies and one is a fact taken from the embassy website.

This isn't an important relationship. There are no embassies, there was a loan of only a small amount of money. The leaders only met once. The meeting only lasted 3 days. Wikipedia isn't only about superlatives. That is the the Guinness book of World Records. That will show you the richest country, the biggest, the first, the last, the most populous. Wikipedia only cares if it is notable. Notability is when the media takes notice and writes about something. Every fact is sourced in the article to reliable media.

In summary the article meets every Wikipedia requirement, and since there have been additions to the article since the nomination, the consensus has shifted to keep from delete. 7 more footnotes were added from three new sources, and the article was put in chronological order. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

consensus can change and the last closing admin has now been banned from closing bilateral AfDs due to poor judgements in closing. LibStar (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Mr. Norton and since there have been additions to the article since the nomination, the consensus has shifted to keep from delete. That's not what happened. A bunch of puff unrelated to the subject and generally from poor sources was restored to the article. So what? That the arse canvassing tag brought in a couple of keep for the sake of the kittens votes is risible, but not particularly surprising or reflective of the content of the article.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Puff" and "poor sources" are subjective. What source is unreliable to you? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a not single independent secondary source in the article that address the topic of these countries' relations directly and in detail. Sure, all the individual facts in the article are cited to reliable (though not necessarily independent) sources, but the article is just an assemblage of these factoids. WP:N requires the existence of sources that address the topic itself, and there aren't any. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Wikipedia doesn't care if 10 facts come from one source or 10 facts come from 10 sources. Mathematically they are identical, Wikipedia discourages single source articles. Can you quote the rule that says that the information needs to come from a single in-depth source? I have never seen the rule. Are you suggesting that the word "relations" needs to appear in the source material to be considered a source on the topic itself? It would be great if all the information came from one source, it would make writing it much easier. Wikipedia makes no such requirement. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed the point. Yilloslime ^T_C 00:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Norton, additional non trivial sources (not barrel scraping) would further your case for notability. please provide 7 more new non trivial sources of actual bilateral relations, and I'll happily change my vote. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Barrel scraping" is again a subjective term and is derogatory to the BBC and the English versions of the Croation and Mongolian and Chinese news services. Please quote the Wikipedia rule that discusses barrel scraping. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You again are putting forth the argument that the cited work must use the term "bilateral relation" in the text or title to be used in the article or to be considered "in depth". Wikipedia has no such requirement. Any synonym for the relationship can be used by the cited article: war, state-visit, commerce, loans, agreements, exchanges. All the things that are listed on the United States Department of State website for US relations with other countries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've missed the point. LibStar (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing how much effort you spend arguing semantics and not actually looking for actual sources that would strengthen your case. is it that there does not exist significant in depth coverage of these bilateral relations? LibStar (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more time, Wikipedia doesn't care if 10 facts come from 1 source, or 10 facts come from 10 sources, mathematically they are identical. If you know of some rule that says otherwise please quote it here for me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment an editor here has introduced a novel interpretation of the notability criteria: 10 non-trivial sources. I think this was invented because there already were non trivial sources, and the usual (and appropriate if true) argument that there were none had been exploded. I think the ed. means this absurd condition quite literally: after three more were added, he asked for another 7. Then he asked that they contain the exact wording of the title. And all this was after major parts of the content were removed before the AfD. Apparently he really does believe that no article on bilateral relations except between major countries can possibly be notable, and that no possible evidence can prove otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course the real standard is more than one non-trivial source. Fortunately, there are zero non-trivial sources on the topic of Croatian/Mongolian relations, so the article will be deleted in due time. Abductive (reasoning) 04:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you quote directly from the Wikipedia rule on "trivial sources" right here please? I have quoted directly all the refutations, please do me the same favor. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, WP:Notability mentions "trivial" twice plus once in a footnote. The term "non-trivial source" has been used in 979 AfDs, the term "trivial mention" has been used in 2,616 AfDs, and the term "significant coverage" has been used in 11,959 AfDs.Abductive (reasoning) 04:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Telling me a word is used is in a guideline is not defining it for me. It is just telling me the word appears. You can't define a word by just typing the word. Tell me the rule that distinguishes trivia from something substantive, tell me the number of words a reference must have to go from trivial to substantive, what is the magic number? If there is a magic number then it will no longer be subjective, we can distinguish trivia. To me all sports statistics are trivia, and to others it is their raison d'être. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "rule" is rather dispersed but has consensus, subject of course to different interpretations of what "significant" means. I can say little else. Abductive (reasoning) 04:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a rule if you can't quote it, it is just a vague concept you and a few others have. Until a firm number is put forth, I will stand by the concept: 10 facts from 1 source, or 10 facts from 10 sources, mathematically they are identical in their depth. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, this is not a concept held by a few; in fact, your position is in the minority. An exact quote from WP:N is third parties "... have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it...". Most of the participants in this AfD are of the opinion that there are no non-trivial sources that focus on the topic. Put another way, if a topic has no sources at all it fails WP:V, but if sources exist it can still fail WP:N. All non-SNOW AfDs revolve around the interpretation of the strength of the sources. If it was clear-cut, then there would never be any AfDs. Abductive (reasoning) 05:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reliable and verifiable sources provided in the article establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep quality articles, sources present easilly sufficient to establish notability. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this bilateral relations AfD has been jumped on by the "usual suspects" (myself, Mansford, Libstar, DGG, Bali ultimate, Abductive, MQS, Bearian, Dream Focus, RAN 1958, Alansohn, & FeydHuxtable), it's interesting to note that the "new faces" here (Joy, DustFormsWords, Quantpole, Joal Beal and to a lesser extent Nick-D, & Mkativerata) have all argued for deletion. I think that says something. Yilloslime ^T_C 18:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are multiple independent sources which demonstrate a seemingly improbable international relationship.--TM 00:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They demonstrate something exists (even if just barely), but my primary argument for deletion wasn't verifiability, it's notability. (The deletion policy says that failure to meet the notability guideline can be a valid reason for deletion.) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

State Visits and loans are what make up bilateral relationships. Clearly, the two states have a relationship and multiple independent sources demonstrate this relationship. To me, this relationship is clearly both notable and verifiable.--TM 11:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have secondary sources that claim that "State Visits and loans are what make up bilateral relationships"? Abductive (reasoning) 18:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Do you not understand what Bilateralism is? Are you disputing that State Visits by high ranking officials and intergovernmental loans are not part of the basis for bilateral relations?--TM 19:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I see is a claim with no sources. You say loans and state visits. Do secondary sources say that those two things are the totality of "bilateral relations"? Can you proffer any sources? Abductive (reasoning) 19:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus exists to keep the content, but perhaps not at this title. Merge/move can be discussed at the articles' talk pages outside of the AfD process. Shimeru (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors about the September 11 attacks

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

This article appears to be nothing more than a random collection of gossip and false or mistaken reports concerning 9-11 that would not be notable in a stand-alone article and of passing significance in a separate article. The few exceptions are either covered much more elsewhere or don't even fit in the subject in the first place (e.g. the Iraq mention). Essentially this article serves no real purpose. I cannot imagine a redirect that would be adequate or merger that would be necessary.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it could use some better sourcing but it's not devoid of reliable sources. Seems to pass WP:N. Tisane (talk) 08:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the VfD from 2005 said to merge and redirect to the conspiracy theory of 9/11 article. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is an encyclopedic purpose for a sourced article that clears up misinformation by citing to reliable sources, although arranging it and putting a title to it is another matter. No matter how open-minded one may believe themselves to be, I think it's impossible to write about the 9/11 attacks without getting into POV issues. Unlike opinions, factual information can be shown to be true or false, and entire books have been devoted to tracking down the origin of misconceptions (the bestselling The Dictionary of Misinformation, by Tom Burnam, is a notable example). People turn to a reference work to find out what the facts are behind any statement, and Wikipedia is, ultimately, a work of reference. Mandsford (talk) 12:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and perhaps combine with the conspiracies article into Alternate views of 9/11.--Supertouch (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. What is this, 9/11 conspiracy theories Part Deux: Wilder and Wackier ? Salvage whatever useful bit there are (IMO, not much) into 9/11 conspiracy theories and delete the rest. There's really no valid justification for keeping a content fork. Tarc (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Mandsford. A perfectly fine article. Lugnuts (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with 9/11 conspiracy theories. Appears to be an unnecessary content fork.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This topic contains essentially two references that could be construed as having anything to do with conspiracy theories. Most of it is just unproven or disproven claims, including inaccurate casualty estimates. I would not call conspiracy theories rumors either, they're not equivalent terms. I see no reason why this needs to be a redirect for anything. Is anyone honestly going to look for "rumors" about the attacks if they are looking into the conspiracy theories?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but cleanup - only notable rumours should be included, and those that cannot be sourced should be removed. Robofish (talk) 20:30, 8 May 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. Shimeru (talk) 00:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Ryon

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

Article which exists only to raise the profile of a political candidate, which the author makes clear here, but Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. WP:POLITICIAN states that unelected candidates are not inherently notable and there is no other indication of notability: the references and external links are all either (a) the subject's own campaign sites, (b) tables of results which include the subject amonst them, or (c) coverage of the elections, with passing reference to subject - ie no significant 3rd party coverage, and certainly nothing outside of being as political candidate. Twice speedily deleted as David Ryon, the author has recreated the article citing the existence of articles on opponents Mary Jo Kilroy and Steve Stivers as grounds for inclusion, but those individuals are elected politicians and therefore notable. I42 (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable politician who has yet to win a single race. (GregJackP (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete GregJack sums it up for me. The statement that he had been "a Republican candidate for the United States Congress in the 12th district of Ohio" has to be tempered with "Ryon took just under 10 percent of the vote in the Republican Primary". Even party nominees aren't normally entitled to their own article. He can be mentioned (no redirect, no merge) in the article about Ohio's 15th congressional district. Mandsford (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Save Correction Steve Stivers is not currently holding any office. The original David Ryon article had been up for over a year without anybody challenging it. I would a least suggest you hold off on the delete until after today's primary. If Mr. Ryon wins his primary which would be historic since its the only contested Constitution Party primary in Ohio and the first Constitution Party primary in Ohio that has to be notable. If David Ryon loses then I would agree the article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.119.183 (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous phrasing; apologies. For clarity: both are people who have been elected, and therefore are notable. Notability is not temporary, so whether they are still in office is irrelevant. I42 (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What was he elected to, exactly? It's not in his biography. And who is he running against in the primary election, since there isn't a choice between two or more poeple for the right to be the Constitution candidate in November? Mandsford (talk) 20:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's getting confusing! "Both" as I meant it were Mary Jo Kilroy and Steve Stivers in the original nomination, not Stivers and Ryon. I42 (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Routinely unsuccessful candidates are not notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Agree with Mandsford's analysis. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Save~~ Dup !vote struck There were two candidates running for the nomination of the Constitution Party in Ohio's 15th Congressional District. David Ryon and Chris Macisco both were candidates in Ohio's first and only contested Constitution Party Primary on May 4, 2010. In unofficial results from the Secretary of State of Ohio with 100% of the Statewide precincts reporting, David Ryon is winning with a 2.5% lead over Chris Macisco. Isn't winning a notable achievement in a first and only contested Constitution Party primary ever held in Ohio? It means that David Ryon earned the right to be on the General Ballot in November as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.119.183 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 5 May 2010

Wikipedia guidelines state that in general such elections are not notable enough to assert notability to the winner of the contest: WP:POLITICIAN asserts notability only to "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature and judges". You state that this Primary was historic and therefore notable, and here what Wikipedia requires is significant independent coverage in reliable sources that demonstrate that it is historic and therefore notable. But be aware that if such coverage is produced and consensus is reached that it does indicate that the election is exceptional, WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E may well still apply: even though an event may be notable, the individual(s) involved (who are not otherwise notable) are covered as part of that event, not in separate articles about them. I42 (talk) 06:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not another vote but information. Basically, the David Ryon article had been up for over a year before two meatpuppets came on and started to vanadlize the article. The David Ryon article was receving nearly 180 + hits a month. The meatpuppets in this case were to get the article removed instead of saved. The article was up for over year and NOW all the of the sudden there is a huge demand for its deletion. It gives a completely unfair and bias slant toward incumbent politicians. And like anything else policies can simply be abused in order to help the major party candidates. The people demanding the deletion may just be meatpuppets from the Stivers and Kilroy campaign to trying to minimize information about David Ryon to the media. We all know that major media outlets do use this site for information. This congressional race is one of the most watched currently in the United States and notable. Part of the notability are the candidates involved. When a notable event with only 4 candidates occur people are going to want information about the candidates. I go back to my original comment. The David Ryon article was receiving 180 + hits a month. SOMEBODY was taking the time to read about David Ryon. And now SOMEBODIES are trying to get the article removed interesting at how that works. There were 5 national media news sources that mention David Ryon. Here read them for yourselves. One comparing David Ryon to Doug Hoffman in the New York's 23rd Congressional Race. Plus, try this...see how much media coverage you can find on William Kammerer the Libertarian candidate in Ohio's 15th congressional race see how many mentions of him do you find in these national syndicated media outlets. David Ryon is getting National Press and not all the candidates in the race did. I would like to point out that there were 7 candidates in the beginning. Ryon, Stivers, and Kilroy being the only ones getting National Press. Why did the National Media mention David Ryon and not the other candidates William Kammerer, Chris Macisco, John Adams, Ralph Applegate?

The Washington Times Article
National Journal Hotline Article
The Hill Article
The Wall Steet Journal Article
POLITICO Article
A Blog comparing David Ryon to Doug Hoffman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.119.183 (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please desist from your personal attacks. For the record, your assumptions about the reason I nominated this article for deletion are entirely false - I have absolutley no involvement in US politics; I am not even a US citizen. The article first drew my attention when it appeared on 5 May during New Page patrol; the only consideration was whether it meets Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and it is clear to me that it does not. I42 (talk) 09:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the links above notwithstanding, it still fails WP:POLITICIAN, which states in fn7 that "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Ryon does not meet that criteria. The links you provide show:

The Washington Times Article - passing mention one time in article about Hoffman.
National Journal Hotline Article - one line notice that Ryon would not contest GOP nomination.
The Hill Article - passing mention in article about Stivers.
The Wall Steet Journal Article - passing mention one time in article about Hoffman.
POLITICO Article - more coverage, but in a D.C. local free newsletter which is simultaneously offered on the web. The article states that he is a "long-shot candidate with little public support..."
A Blog comparing David Ryon to Doug Hoffman - brief article on a non-notable blog.

These articles do not seem to meet the criteria for WP:POLITICIAN noted above. GregJackP (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see everyone keeps side stepping and ignoring the face the original David Ryon article was up for over a year getting 180+ hits a month. Where we you a over a year ago when the original article went up? For the record, I was pointing out that the two vandals that we editing and vandalizing the original David Ryon article were meatpuppets. It is obvious. Both accounts that were created shows in their history that only contributions that offered were edits to the original David Ryon article if that had never happened we would not even be having this discussion today. The oroginal David Ryon would still be up if it had not been vandalize. AND IT WAS VANDALIZE by two meatpuppets.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.119.183 (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing some kind of amnesty because the article didn't get discussed sooner? What policy supports that? I42 (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - concur with I42, there is no merit to the argument that getting 180+ hits means that the article should be spared deletion if it is not notable. GregJackP (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I am saying is the original David Ryon article would still be up if it had not been vandalize by two meat-puppets. Obviously wikipedia policies are slanted to incumbents and offers free advertising for them. I read through Stivers article what makes it notable? Just because he was a state senator doesn't mean he was notable, I don't see anything notable about him but he gets a wiki article. I would say that the Steve Stivers article lacks many of the standards that you claim the Ryon article does not live up too but you are only holding the Ryon article accountable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.119.183 (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vandalism or other issues sometimes expose an article to many eyes when it went unseen before, and wikipedia is slanted by design towards topics that have coverage in reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:40, 11 May 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) 02:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minmae

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

No reliable sources given or found to establish notability of a musical group. Prod removed by IP. tedder (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 06:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now - There are two decent sources, but one is really about Brooks and not the band. Otherwise everything else I found was record release notices and event listings. Try again when a few more reliable sources exist. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom. moɳo 00:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Evening Episode

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

No reliable sources given or found to establish notability of a musical group. Prod removed by IP. tedder (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 06:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't look notable. Reliable sources are not showing up on Google. Tisane (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm the article's creator and even I don't mind deleting this. —Muéro^(talk/c) 23:33, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Sandwich Fault Zone. Shimeru (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Illinois earthquake

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't think Wikipedia needs an article for every earthquake. My rationale behind this is WP:NOTNEWS. Mike moral ♪♫ 05:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the previous nom, it does fail to look at the article's subject in a historical manner. It has been about a month an no editing activity in the sense of improving since then. To be honest, this reads as a news article like one would find in Wikinews or the New York Times and it is so. --Mike moral ♪♫ 05:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Everything gets reported in the news when it happens. This was, from a historical perspective, a non-event, and WP:NOTNEWS clearly applies. Please read Richter_scale#Richter_magnitudes for some perspective. An earthquake between 3.0-3.9 magnitude happens something on the order of 49,000 per year. The are strong enough to be felt, but "rarely cause damage". Something which happens over 100 times per day, and leaves no lasting effects seems to be patently non-notable, despite a few newstories the day after it happened. --Jayron32 05:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to Merge to Sandwich Fault Zone for same reasons listed above, and rationales below. --Jayron32 20:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sandwich Fault Zone. Someone might search for it as Illinois quake, but its notability is in the new information it provides about the fault, not in the quake itself. Jminthorne (talk) 08:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-event. We cannot create an article everytime there is a minor earthquake somewhere on the planet!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I !voted keep in the first one, but with the benefit of further time to think about it, I'm going to say delete, redirect to Sandwich Fault Zone, as Jminthorne suggested. Jayron32 also makes a good point with the number of such earthquakes that happen per year. Cheers, C628 (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sandwich Fault Zone BUT please expand Sandwich Fault Zone some. — Diiscool (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect per above. Although the consensus was to keep this news story soon after it happened, this wouldn't be on here if it had been a 3.8 quake anywhere outside the U.S.A., or had it happened in a year that didn't begin with a "2". Illinois doesn't have quakes very often, sure, but write an article about Illinois quakes in general ("Sandwich Fault Zone"? No, I don't want to know why), not about an individual incident that no longer makes any news. If you've ever heard the windows shake because a helicopter was flying nearby, that's about the effect of a 3.8 tremor. Not notable in March, not notable now. Mandsford (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is another not very sever earthquake article.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Example 700, it seems, of how some people are too quick to edit Wikipedia when the news breaks. In all seriousness, this is a case of NOTNEWS, and I agree with the redirect proposal. HonouraryMix (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - otherwise non-notable earthquake, but users looking for info on it would certainly find the Sandwich Fault Zone quite useful (if expanded).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would we all agree to move the information presented in the article and more the relevent information to the fault article? --Mike moral ♪♫ 19:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would agree. — Diiscool (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Sandwich Fault Zone and merge a pared-down version of the text in. File:2010 Illinois earthquake map.jpg may be helpful to the Sandwich article also. --Closeapple (talk) 19:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge if a suitable place exists. I blogged about earthquake AfDs recently, there is little rhyme or reason to what is kept and what is deleted.[19]. As long as content is verifiable, no need to delete.--Milowent (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - verifiability is not a sufficient condition for notability. While a 3.9 earthquake may be exceptional in this location, it's not otherwise noteworthy and falls under WP:NOTNEWS. However, the fault zone itself appears notable, and mention of important seismic events relative to that location can be put in that article.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 16:21, 5 May 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) 02:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M. Qaiser Fatmi

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

Biography of an academic with no evidence of passing WP:PROF. Google scholar finds published papers [20] but not at a level of citation that would demonstrate a pass of WP:PROF #1. Additionally, the article has no reliable sources, which are needed especially for biographies of living persons. David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scopus shows 8 published papers, but the citations are 11, 9 , 6, 2, Not yet notable. This was listed as a BLP prod, but his basic accomplishments were easily verifiable--it's just that they aren't enough. DGG ( talk ) 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Not enough to survive AfD; enough to survive BLP prod. moɳo 00:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per DGG.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:54, 11 May 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) 02:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Vanderburg

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. "Best known for his friendship with Albert Einstein." Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can find no trace of the books: Burnstein, M (1967). "Cyrus Vanderburg: A True Czech Hero" Random House or Vanderburg, C, Vanderburg, E. (1976). "The Way I See It: Letters from Cyrus" New Zion Press. I suspect a hoax. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Possible hoax; lacking n. moɳo 00:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am assume this is not a hoax. Even with that assumption, this person is just not notable. Einstein had lots of "friends" and there were lots of Holocaust survivors, thankfully, who started life anew in Isreal. It is a heartening tale, but hardly notable. Bearian (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that we always should assume good faith when responding to the opinions voiced by others in the nomination process, including the nomination itself, and we should always be careful before labeling a person as being a purveyor of lies. However, WP:AGF does not require us to assume good faith when it comes to any statement offered as fact, and there is nothing uncivil about expressing suspicion of dubious contributions to an encyclopedia, so it's OK if you want to say that you're skeptical. The negative return from the Google search, combined with the fact that this is a contribution from what is called an "SPA" (single purpose account), is enough for me. Mandsford (talk) 13:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we can't take chances on hoaxes. I find it staggeringly hard to believe that a real published book would have no Google hits, much less two different ublished books on the same topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a bad attempt at a hoax, but a hoax nonetheless. I loved the titles for the made-up sources-- A True Czech Hero and The Way I See It. Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 11 May 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. Tim Song (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New Medicine (band)

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

This band appears to not quite meet WP:BAND. They are close on #4 and not quite so much on #1, but as near as I can tell they are third billed for a regional tour and all the third party coverage I can find is aimed at the headliners. Jminthorne (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're right men, i doesn't denied you refutation. That you believe this article have criteria of speedy deletion, you decide, i search, and searched all web this month, and no found more. I wait that you consider this info. I'm working for wikipedia, for like it, with the more seriously of the situation it merit. UltraHeadShot —Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I guess there's a bit of WP:CRYSTAL here, but the Uproar Festival will put them among some very notable names, in an international (binational?) tour. If nothing else, merge to label page! - BalthCat (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Davnor (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of management consulting firms

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

No reason for list to exist. By its own definition, it is an exact duplicate of Category:Management consulting firms. Per WP:LIST, WP:SALAT and WP:CLN, this information is best served as a category rather than a list. Jayron32 04:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, although I note that the list cannot exactly duplicate the category since the list has a few redlinks on it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, the list can be improved, unlike the category. See also WP:CLN for the redundancy argument. Polarpanda (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list like this is just a spamtrap. The category is the right tool, and per WP:NOTDIR we do not try to list every notable management consulting firm (particularly the redlink ones). Johnuniq (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just list those that have articles about them. Dream Focus 11:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dream is on point. In fact, in its form up until this AfD, the list made clear in its title that it was limited to firms with wp articles on them.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its perfectly acceptable for a Wikipedia list, as it aids in navigation. No reason to destroy it, just because some prefer categories to list. I prefer list myself, they far easier to look through and use. And additional information can be added to this list, a short sentence or two about each company listed here. Dream Focus 11:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since probably most of these businesses should not have stand alone articles in the first place, a list of them probably should not be here either. The first entry starts off with some morally troubling text, rose-colored but quite foggy:

A.T. Kearney is a global management consulting firm, focusing on strategic and operational CEO-agenda concerns. The stated mission of A.T. Kearney is to help the world’s leading corporations gain and sustain competitive advantage, and achieve profound, tangible results. Its slogan is: Ideas that last.

There's similar twaddle throughout the article: Their goal is to provide evidence and help with making decisions, with the motto ‘Better Decisions, Better World’. ....generally ranked as one of the most "prestigious" management consulting firms in the industry.... generalist strategy consultancy with expertise across all major industries. It is a principal adviser to private equity, and was the number 1 adviser in number of transactions in Europe during 2007.... a leading adviser... If this is kept, all of this spammy nonsense ought to be relentlessly scrubbed. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I took a few minutes this morning to improve the article by strengthening the lead-in and adding descriptions and in some case sourcing for each entry. These descriptions were taken from the lead-in for individual articles and may need some improvement to remove redundancy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Cline (talk • contribs) --Mike Cline (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination Based on the work done by Mike Cline in demonstrating the suitibleness of this list and on improving the article (for which he should be commended), my initial objections, based on the state I found the article in (see [21]) have all been addressed. In my opinion, this is the best result of an AFD discussion. I understand that people have already voted delete, and so this may still run the full week before closing, but I wanted to note that my objections to this article, as nominator, have been addressed. --Jayron32 16:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason for nomination to exist. AFD is not cleanup. Categories do not supersede lists. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, as this list topic or a definition for this list appears to have not been published anywhere else other than Wikipedia, as it does not have a verifiable definition and contravenes the prohibition on original research as illustrated by WP:MADEUP. If it has not be been published anywhere else, and there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable list topic, then there is no rationale for inclusion. To demonstrate that this topic was not created based on editor's own whim, a verifiable definition is needed to provide external validation that this list complies with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: The terms are clearly not made up. See Management consulting which, while it could use some help stylisticly, clearly establishes itself as a notable concept; the term is used in the titles of books in the "further reading" section, for example. See also Association of Management Consulting Firms, which is an organization which uses the term directly. The list topic, management consulting firms, is clearly a well defined one. --Jayron32 15:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This cookie cutter contribution seems deceptive as it seems to have been made without regard to the facts. A simple search instantly finds lists of management consulting firms in sources such as The essentials of management consulting, "A list of major management consulting firms is provided in the table on the following pages. For a detailed list of companies...". Colonel Warden (talk) 08:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lets be blunt, guys, this list is just pure spam, there is no avoiding this criticism, and you should be ashamed of your involement with this list, which as a topic has no external definition to demonstrate its authenticity .
In answer to Jayron32, this list is distinct and seperate topic from Management consulting, and a distinct and seperate definition is required to identify it as such in accordance with WP:LIST#List content. Article and list Topics don't inherit a rationale for inclusion from each other, they need provide evidence that they are verifiable topics in their own right.
In answer to Colonel Warden, if this is a valid source, then why is not cite this source in the list? You must know by now that WP:GOOGLEHITS is not a valid argument.
This list topic is based on the madeup premise that "This list includes notable Management Consulting firms". Who says they are notable? Who says these firms are "major" consulting firms? Such strong claims must be backed up by exceptional sources, not hearsay or unsupported claims that this list topic has "clearly not made up". Wikipedia is not the yellow pages of the management consulting world. There has to some form of external validation in the form of a sourced definition for this list, otherwise content policy which prohibits promotional topics cannot be enforced. We need to know that this article is not spam, and we can only know this if its defintion comes a reliable source provides evidence that it is not. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to "who says they are notable" is that Wikipedia says they are notable, by having articles about them. If you believe some entries on the list are non-notable I encourage you to nominate them for deletion. Polarpanda (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use Wikipedia as source, otherwise that would self-referencing. There needs to be some form of external source to support this statement. Its a bit like saying "This is a list of management consultants featured in Wikipedia", which is not a valid rationale for inclusion, even if it the truth; remember, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. A list topic should only have its own standalone list article if there reliable, third party source that provide a definition, and in doing so, attest to existence of the topic in the real world, not just within Wikipedia. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? Are you, Gavin.collins, seriously arguing that Wikipedia guidelines do not allow for the creation of lists at all? It certainly sounds like that. Under your crietria, it would be impossible for a list to exist at Wikipedia. Take any other random list. What is functionally different between this list, and say List of volcanoes of Canada. I really want to understand your arguement, but it is making no sense to me. Perhaps you can explain what it is about this list that makes it non-notable. I am far to stupid to understand how your arguement against this list could still allow list articles at Wikipedia to exist at all. Could you perhaps explain that to me, using existing list articles which you think are acceptable? I really want to get this, because apparently I have completely misunderstood something fundemental here. --Jayron32 16:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it not unusual to ask for some for of verification. This list does not have a verifiable definition, therefore it has been WP:MADEUP. Unless you can provide a verifiable definition, then this list is just a pile of indiscriminate crap with a spamy twist. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 22:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's a category for all these pages. I can't think of any time it would be useful to anyone to have a list of various consulting firms, scattered across the world, notable for different things. The category fulfills any organizational purpose this list serves. --Pump me up 14:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Your position is that we should ignore WP:CLN in this case, more specifically ignore: Accordingly, these methods [Categories, Lists and Navigation Templates] should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. and Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted just because they overlap. Doing so may disrupt browsing by users who prefer the list system. Is that correct, we should ignore this guideline? Additionally, your statement: I can't think of any time it would be useful to anyone... begs the question: Are you representing your personal opinion of the list or what you believe is the position of the millions of WP readers? --Mike Cline (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:CLN is a load of rubbish, because it fails to differentiate between Wikipedia mainspace (articles and lists) which are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, and all other pages (such as categories), which are not. Its about time some editor slayed this dragon, since it is entirely misleading page of so called "guidance". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 20:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia contains many thousands of lists and so your general hostility to lists is just an idiosyncratic dislike which is neither supported by consensus nor the policies which record this consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Colonel, you should know better than use this tired form of argument: WP:ADHOM. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 21:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I address your personal qualities, you will know it. In this case, I address your general argument. This is peculiar to yourself and not supported by our general practise and policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would you know this? I would suggest the Colonel has no such information to support this view, verfiable or otherwise. Lets just stick to the subject in hand. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 14:48, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CLN: overlapping with categories is allowed. I see no reason that this doesn't function as a coherent list article since it has been trimmed to blue links and well-sourced. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: complies with WP:List and does not violate OR or POV.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of the arguments for deletion, two of them are contrary to policy. The first is that a category and a list are mutually exclusive. The second is that for a list to be notable, the actual subject of there being of list of whatever has to have been discussed in secondary sources--rather than the actual standard that the subject of the list has to be notable and there have to be notable entries to put in it. The other two reasons were given were not not contrary to policy, but contrary to the facts: First, that the nature of the list was undefined. Certainly we cannot have a "List of interesting people."--we have to do what the list is about in a reasonably enough way to judge whether something should be on it. But a management consulting firm is a well defied concept, so well defined that we have articles on many aspects of it--even the nom., of the article for deletion said that argument was clearly wrong. Second, that the contents were spam. They can't be, because the items in the list are firms with articles in WP, and have therefore been judged not spam, but notable; any which are not can be challenged as articles. And now there's one other argument: a false accusation of ad hom argument, for the perfectly true statement that the criteria proposed for the list are such that almost no list could possibly meet it. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Had assumed this would be speedy closed after Mike's excellent work, but see that it has not. So I'll also state the obvious -- keep, for all the reasons expressed above, including of course DGG's typical thoughtful reasoning.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I strongly disagree with the ideas mentioned above that lists do not need to assert notability. Stand-alone lists are articles (WP:STAND makes this explicit) so they most certainly do need to assert notability of the subject matter, ie: the list. If the list itself isn't notable the info can be presented elsewhere, but not as a stand-alone article. The notability criteria shouldn't be too hard to pass for truly notable lists, such as AFI's 100 Years…100 Movies.

The trouble is that it would be nice to retain the content of a few of these list non-articles. I personally think the solution is a new type of mainspace designation but unfortunately I don't see a consensus for this, judging by the mixed reception to the "Outline of Knowledge" WikiProject, which is a stab at something akin to what I'm thinking. Them From Space 15:11, 10 May 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 Nomination withdrawn with leave to speedy renominate. Closing over outstanding delete !vote per WP:IAR. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Era (album)

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

The album songlist has yet to be officially announced at JVR Music's official website at http://www.jvrmusic.com, nor at any other major websites. Article is referenced entirely by one link, namely a Blogspot post (i.e. a blog entry), that is based on rumour information obtained from Chinese BBS forums. The aformentioned blog website also claimed ([22]) to have earlier predicted (incorrectly) the name of Jay Chou's 2010 album (as "Cross 十字勳章 (Shi Zi Xun Zhang)"), along with song names and lyrics back in April, which turned out to be a hoax made by a child on a Chinese forum back in November last year, and also claimed to have the "leaked versions" of the hoax songs, which are obviously not by Jay Chou, but rather a Shanzhai imposter fan.

A google search in Chinese for "周杰倫跨時代专辑歌名" gives nothing but either speculative news or forum posts; a google search in English leads to an even bigger dead end. All that is absolutely, concretely confirmed (being announced officially by JVR Music) is the name of the album and the release date.

(Also possibly of interest: Hardcore fan blog post from 2009: OMGZ!!! New 2009 Jay Chou album called CROSS!!!LOLOLOLOL; "News" that claims Jay Chou's album will be called "Cross"; Tianya forum post made in 2009 regarding the "Cross" hoax; Baidu Tieba post made not that long ago, still believing that the new album will be called "Cross"; Google cache of a Baidu Zhidao post made back in 2009, now deleted, regarding Jay's 2009 Album "Cross", which never existed)

And finally, WP:CRYSTALBALL still is an issue, even though the album itself will be released in 10 days time. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 03:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless additional sources come out. • ɔ ʃ → 02:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until it's released. This really needs someone au fait with Mandarin(?) to look at the sources, but there are shops listing this as released in 7 days time. If this release date is accepted as accurate, further discussion now would seem to be a complete waste of time. If the release date proves to be wrong, or if it gets no coverage after its release (which seems unlikely) then another AFD may be called for.--Michig (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Album to be released tomorrow; accepting retail website as enough verification in good faith, for now. Withdraw nomination. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 12:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (and yes I did notice that someone !voted "keep" twice) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lindbergh Educational Center

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

Non-notable adult/ community education center, no assertion of notability, no sources, google turns up nothing other than the mere fact that they exist. GED prep centers and the like have no inherent notability, if schools weren't excluded from CSD, I'd tag A7. 2 says you, says two 03:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of news coverage; I added three citations to the article but there are many more. Sure they're all local, but so is the news coverage of most high schools - and high schools are generally considered to be notable. BTW this school is not a "GED prep center"; it offers actual high school diplomas and adult education classes as well as the GED. --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of sources, yes but I have to disagree on the assertion that there's plenty of significant coverage:

The business programs link is a directory entry - this helps meet the threshold for verifiability but isn't coverage at all, let alone significant.
The school is mentioned in the RecordNet article but not really discussed, its more about a graduate himself.
The Manteca Bulletin article discusses budget problems in the school district, not specifically L.E.C.
The Manteca School general plan is a first-party source.
The article about students meeting the manga artist is a press-release by the school district and thus also first-party.

Mentions in other news-sources, press-releases, and master plans help expand an article by providing additional facts and insights, but these don't meet the criteria of being non-trivial third party sources that are required to satisfy the general notability guideline. I was misinformed to classify this as a GED prep center, but I still don't think there is enough for this to stand on its own. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge into Manteca Unified School District. 2 says you, says two 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Six additional citations with one coming from Cisco Systems and another from a non-profit group in Lynnwood, Washington have been introduced into the article tonight along with two citations to support the school has won an award. Additionally, present citation #12 known as the San Joaquin 1999 Training Directory contains many pages of information concerning the courses taught. Now that I think of it, I will change my vote to Strong Keep. --Morenooso (talk) 09:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the Sacremento Bee story is a significant reference, appears to be primarily about the school, and is not a press release. It's by a named staff writer of a reputable newspaper. I was rather skeptical of this until I read that reference. DGG ( talk ) 04:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Strong Keep - The subject has received coverage in secondary sources that are verifiable through its references and has won an award as documented by two citations. --Morenooso (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Wright

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

Non-notable recording engineer. Out of the five references listed in the article, only the second one actually mentions her -- and that's only in passing. A Google search came up with the same kind of results. Erpert (let's talk about it) 03:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. without finding other ways to say it... "she is not significant to the industry". She has not produced songs only worked on them as an engineer and a lack of credible sources leads us to one conclusion... what makes her so significant that she deserves an article page when many other engineers (in their hundreds and thousands) don't get one. She has not won awards or anything etc.Lil-unique1 (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough references, and out of references given, i only found one that actually mentions her. Overall not notable enough, plain and simple. I have no problem with the article being recreated when/if more work is added along with more references to meet with wiki notability guide. ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 04:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She exists, and is a recording engineer but no coverage other than trivial mentions. Should be speedy since it meets CSD A7.--Savonneux (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Can be recreated ONLY when there are enough reliable sources. She is notable for music industry unlike other users said. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 05:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Anemone Projectors 13:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corvid college

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

Unaccredited (at least, no mention of accreditation made in the text) "'anarchic' college" with minimal coverage in independent sources. There's no demonstration of any notability outside of the Boston anarchy community. —C.Fred (talk) 03:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per complete lack of notability. ╟─Treasury Tag►estoppel─╢ 16:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not supported by reliable independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia isn't even for schools made up in school one day. (That being said, I've always had a giggle fit at the oxymoron of "anarchic community.") Ravenswing 18:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no coverage in reliable sources, no indication this is a notable college. But then it might take a little bit since the first course had two students. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. support for wikipedia notability. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Brown (media strategist)

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

Not notable brother of a notable person, Off2riorob (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Had his only claims to notability been his relationship to Gordon Brown and his involvement in the expenses, I would have gone for WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTINHERITED. However, I did a Google search for "Andrew Brown" EDF and he seems to be getting a good deal of coverage before any of the expenses stuff became public, like this article. It's hard to tell if his coverage is artificially inflated by being Gordon Brown's brother, but I think there's enough. It will be a major headache to include the stuff about the cleaner in a fair and balanced way, but that's what Wikiproject Politics is for. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chris Neville-Smith. --Dismas|^(talk) 07:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for commenting, basically, keep per jonny is valueless in an AFD, valueless all over the discussion at wikipedia,please ask if you need directing to wikipedia policy and guidelines. Off2riorob (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dismas--Milowent (talk) 03:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly a comedy vote. Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but to expand upon it, I do see significant coverage in reliable sources about this individual, so he does seem to be sufficiently notable to support a keep vote. Its really not surprising that a brother of a world leader might generate enough interest to be notable, e.g., Billy Carter.--Milowent (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A ghost town not notable unwatched stagnant Biography that is only viewed by crawler bots, bring it on. Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you referring to? Surely not the namesake of Billy Beer?--Milowent (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, you are only supporting as a support per Dismas and he is only supporting as a support of the creator of this ADF article, delete, not notable person, media analyst ask yourself .are media analysts notable, no they are not, is he notable as the brother of someone. no he is not, keeping this valueless stub will be of no value to a reader and give the wikipedia a responsibility to take care of it . Merge or redirect anything but this person is not worthy an article.Off2riorob (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually supporting the keep because "I do see significant coverage in reliable sources about this individual, so he does seem to be sufficiently notable to support a keep vote." I do not care whether he is "worthy" of an article beyond that.--Milowent (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You see significant ungoing coverage of this individual, here is the google news nothing. Complete rubbish, you should stop this joking about, it is a big issue when you are not notable to be be stuck with a ghost town unwatched valueless stub that is not about your life. Media strategist what rubbish. Off2riorob (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the news coverage of Andrew Brown doesn't use the words "Andrew Brown (Media Strategist)" in that order, and why would it? (Try a GNews Archive search for "Gordon Brown (politician)" instead of "Gordon Brown" and you'll discover the extra word in brackets filters out 99.997% of the hits.) Have you done a GNews Archive search for "Andrew Brown" EDF like I did? Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to The Telegraph, he has been an assistant producer for Newsnight (a major UK TV current affairs program), a program editor on Channel 4 (one of the UK's 5 terrestrial TV channels), editor of ITN’s political programme Powerhouse (ITN is a large UK TV news organisation), director of media strategy at Weber Shandwick (an international PR company), head of media relations at EDF (a French utility company). There's a Times story about his and EDF's attempted (and somewhat controversial) involvement in the UK's nuclear power program. I think all of those, together with his being the brother of Gordon Brown, probably makes him sufficiently notable. (There are plenty of GHits for '"Andrew Brown" EDF', but I haven't had time to investigate any further, sorry) -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Never been through this procedure before - am I allowed to 'vote', being the originator of the article?) In any case, just wanted to add that "Weber Shandwick is not just an international PR company but is the "WORLD'S LARGEST global public relations firm." and also that the French parent (Électricité de France) of EDF Energy is not only a utility company but is "the WORLD'S LARGEST utility company." and is charged with building the UKs new generation of nuclear power stations - highly controversial in various ways. So having top roles with these is hardly chicken feed. Finally, Brown's namesakes on Wikipedia hardly seem to set the world ablaze in the notability stakes, yet they seem to remain. (p.s. Bearing all this in mind, seems rather odd that, apparently, a page on Brown has already been created and deleted in the past.) James317a (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Overall, this is leaning towards keep, but with so few !votes I would hesitate to make a judgment call. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roscoe Giles

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

Appears to narrowly fail the notability standards for Academics. Tim 1357 ^talk 02:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't find any published papers, there arent even any claims of notability aside from being first black Science PhD from Stanford.--Savonneux (talk) 04:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. His citability is low, but he appears to have made an impact in other ways (e.g. winner of Haberman award, chair of Supercomputing 2002). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Full professor in two departs at Boston University, a significant research university. Needs a check for publications and citations, though. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When anyone searches for him note that there is a Roscoe C. Giles who is not the same person.--Savonneux (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand what the problem is, he seems notable enough just based on the information and references already in the article. Has multiple publications at Google Scholar ("can't find any published papers"? How about this, this, this, this, this?) has won awards and chaired significant events. --MelanieN (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Tim Song (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vinismo

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)

Delete. Very thinly-sourced, one local media reference. I'm not sure this is terribly notable but would be glad to be proven wrong. — e. ripley\^talk 02:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vinismo is becoming a recognized and reliable site for information about wines, a topic near and dear to many Wikipedians' hearts. There are not very many non-commercial sites to which one can refer on this topic. In fact at least 4 current Wikipedia pages link to Vinismo.com as sources for their content. Please see Sauvignon blanc, Mendoza Province, Yarra Valley and Marlborough Region. I had hoped that it would be possible to improve many other wine-related pages by having a {vinismo]] page here in Wikipedia. Gaiamei (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)q[reply]
Vinismo is notable for being a Open Content wine guide. Beyond the merits of its content and its usefulness as a source for Wikipedia, it has value as a proof-of-concept for authoritative, collaborative, copyleft content. Maj (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Prior to this vote, last edit was in 2007. — e. ripley\^talk 17:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support having a page about Vinismo here on Wikipedia. It is a very good site and I use it frequently. I like to know more about it. Please do not delete it. Thank you. Albert Albertmost (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Note, Albertmost (talk · contribs)'s first edit. Meatpuppets are discouraged here. — e. ripley\^talk 18:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vinismo is an OPEN and non-commercial wine resource. World famous? No, not yet. --ron k jeffries —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.225.71 (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides being the only open-content wine guide out there, Vinismo is notable specifically because it's the right place for many wiki articles about wine that don't belong on Wikipedia. See: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_wine_guide I disagree with deleting this article. Zach (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding rude (I don't mean to so I hope you will forgive me), did you end up here because of some sort of canvassing, Zcopley? I ask because prior to this, your last edit was in January. — e. ripley\^talk 19:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

E. Ripley: Does hearing that the page is up for deletion directly from a friend count as being canvased? Not sure why that's relevant. I was a bit baffled as to why the Vinismo page is up for deletion and wanted to voice my opinion that it should not be. I'm a light contributor to both Wikipedia and Vinismo (as well as other wikis) and it's an article I care about. Zach (talk) 20:37, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does, in fact; take a look at WP:Canvassing. In this case it's inappropriate because someone is clearly recruiting people to come to this page to influence the vote tally toward the "keep" side. These AFD debates are supposed to be composed mostly of neutral parties evaluating an article on its merits. That being said, it's mostly just important to note for the closing admin. — e. ripley\^talk 02:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vinismo is notable project and I'm adding a couple more references to support this claim. Its important free culture resource, just like some other wikis out there that also provide a wealth of knowledge. Jon Phillips (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

undefined — No one has voted on this yet... moɳo 00:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References meet our guidelines. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Montreal Gazette source, predating nomination. - BalthCat (talk) 06:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Light in school buildings. There is a long list of "delete" !votes based on WP:NOT#ESSAY, but just because the article is poorly written and formatted does not mean that it should be deleted. And few of the others believe the topic should remain as a separate article. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Positive effects of natural daylighting in schools

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

Odd essay, likely copydump (and therefore probable copyvio from somewhere...) — e. ripley\^talk 02:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an essay. JIP | Talk 03:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#ESSAY.--Savonneux (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. sources are indicated, though: the creator can provide brief, sourced statements in the article on this subject, only if they can understand why this will be deleted.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete But ask editor to add sourced material to daylighting which needs the information desperately.Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Essay. Joe Chill (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I strongly agree with the point this essay makes, but it just looks like somebody copy-pasted their homework. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The handwaving WP:NOT#ESSAY arguments above are false because it is not "your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the consensus of experts)" The article compiles numerous expert sources and so is an excellent contribution which we might well use in articles such as Daylighting and/or Classroom design. The latter article shows how such material may be wikified and cleaned up to make it satisfactory and it is our editing policy to do this rather than deleting the contribution. The claim that this is a copyright violation is unsupported and is a breach of our civility policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If it was to be kept, to remain neutral surely the article would have to be moved to Dffects of natural daylighting in schools. That would be the only way this article could offer meaningful information on the subject. --Pump me up 14:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources available for this. And didn't we recently have an article like this? On light affecting the workplace or schools? Dream Focus 13:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a student's book report. Joal Beal (talk) 15:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Light in school buildings. That article has been established for a few months, wikified and has inline citations. Any relevant information in this article can easily be inserted to that one, which is a better title, less objective and does not sound like an essay title. --Pump me up 14:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC) Delete appears to be a school essay, nothing in the article is actually a suitable subject. WP:NOT#ESSAY. --Pump me up 14:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Light in school buildings per Pumpmeup. Nice find. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Splunge for me too (ie light in school buildings, not daylighting as i suggested above).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:04, 10 May 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. Tone 18:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010 Pichilemu earthquake

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

This article seems be in violation of Wikipedia policy, namely WP:NOTNEWS. Terinjokes (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Justmeagain83 (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Being the first to discover a new earthquake is the Wikipedia equivalent of an astronomer being the first to discover a new star or asteroid, whereby one gets the credit and the naming rights. As with an airline incident, there's a template that can be filled out with all the info from the appropriate geological service. However, the measure of a quake on Wikipedia is whether it has historical notability, and on what I'd call the "Wikter scale", this one doesn't register. Mandsford (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above. Another articel about just another quake.Slatersteven (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Mandsford; clearly NOTNEWS applies and there is no need for an article for each earthquake. Mike moral ♪♫ 05:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with above rationales. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The band is mentioned in its lead singer's bio. Also noting unsourced band - there is no reliable sourced info to merge. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sticks and Stones (band)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. allmusic.com lists two bands called "Sticks & Stones", two bands called "Sticks and Stones", and one band called "Sticks & Stone". None of them are this band. We may therefore infer that this band is, at best, the sixth-most-notable band named "Sticks & Stones" or some close approximation thereof. That is not a category of which being the sixth-most-notable member is sufficient to merit a Wikipedia article. When the other five (or more) bands have articles perhaps we can reconsider the matter. Herostratus (talk) 03:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Merge to Jack Terricloth (Ventantonio).- BalthCat (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I mistakenly closed this early, not seeing the relist. I have reopened it to allow the discussion to run its course. Shimeru (talk) 03:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to meet notability guidelines of WP:MUSIC. PK T(alk) 16:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I must agree with the argument regarding the lack of sources. There are many useful websites -- and many of them do not have a Wikipedia article for lack of sources. Usefulness is not a criterion. No prejudice to recreation if sources (including non-English sources) are found. Shimeru (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Online Quran Project

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

This is not a notable website. I knew there werent any references but I still gave the creator of the article some time to get references but they do not exist as the website is not notable. For notability guidelines about websites, see Wikipedia:Notability (web). Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: Please provide rationale of keeping the article, if thats what you decide to do and if you do that, you must tell people why it satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (web). The article creator can always userfy it and move the article back when notability has been established. I gave the author a lot of time. I put in a notability template on April 20 and let him know what he had to do. The website simply is NOT notable even though its a good resource. Wikipedia does NOT have articles on non-notable subjects. I'm shocked that admins like DGG and JClemens are wanting to keep the article while giving no evidence of notability. Added later: If this article is a keep and notability has not been established, I will consult with the closing admin on how to proceed since we clearly do not keep articles on non-notable websites. Please also notice that all the references in the Notes section are empty 'phantom' references that give a false impression i.e., none of them are real references which talk about the website in any detail (the requirement for notability) asides from perhaps simply linking to it. In some cases there is no link or mention at all. All the content in this article is unsourced WP:OR. If there's no significant coverage from multiple reliable sources then the website is not notable no matter how good a resource it is. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:15, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no you don't. IAR closes are quite possible, though generally a free ticket to a DRV. Note also, however, that the nominator and primary opponent of this article's existence has been blocked multiple times, with a warning in the fall 2009 block that a subsequent block would be indefinite. So, the chances of this editor actually being able to file a DRV if he doesn't get his way appear to be somewhat less than 100%. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for spending the time to investigate my personal history which is not relevant here. Thats why people start over with a clean slate so no one can use their history against them (and I have only 2 blocks which were valid blocks if you had checked a little more). The issue is not me getting my way but establishing notability for this article. Atleast once I've nominated something for deletion and closed it myself when notability was established. Cheers. PS, could you please announce this deletion to more avenues so we can get some more input? I wont hold it against you). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find no independant, reliable sources to establish notability. EuroPride (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm what is there to say. Its quite sad that all the worked I have put into this article is nominated to deletion. I can't figure out why the 'History' section was reverted, even if it did not comply with the notability..? I will send the raw text to the Online Quran Project if they wish to make use of it; (!if this article is going to be deleted!). Best regard, --Imdkzmaa (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats just how it is here: a topic has to be notable enough, but I gave you a link on your talk page where that article can go as it is so your work will not be wasted. If they dont accept it, let me know, I know of a few other websites which will be happy to take your work. I reverted your changes because those were just external links and not real references. External links go in the external links section and we also dont link to small websites. The rest of the things in the History section were original search (see WP:OR) so I took that out. Basically once again, you need significant coverage from multiple reliable sources in order to establish notability. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 20:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article you send me and search wikipedia for some inspiration, here I found the article on Yamli. As a inspiration of there 'History' section I contacted the people behind the Online Quran Project (OQP) and wrote a similar section reflection the history of OQP. So either both 'History' section are right/wrong for respectively OQP and Yamli? Anyhow if the site need to be deleted in corresponding with the rules/guidelines of Wikipedia, then it need to be deleted.. You are more than welcome to send the information to the sites you know. Best regards, --Imdkzmaa (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For Yamli and OQP and any other article, all text must be attriuted to reliable source. We cannot simply enter text because the main question is: who wrote it? See WP:OR. For Yamli, there's only one reference in the history section and that has stopped working. Everything else looks like OR. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. I too cannot understand why the history section was removed, for it is the context of the project. The notes given are not all references--some are explanations, some are links, but this is a matter of format and not a reason for deletion. It is perfectly acceptable at Wikipedia to use footnote numbering for notes. Much of this is direct observation, and that is acceptable as a primary source, just as I could include what I am describing, just as I describe any other reference book or website. With respect to the history, we do ultimately remove material that is unsourceable, but we do not delete it immediately if merely unsourced unless it is contentious --and I see nothing the least contentious or unlikely here. Matt, am I missing something here that is actually controversial or even dubious? I have therefore used my own judgement, and restored these sections to enable us to better judge the article. It is usually considered quite wrong to do this sort of a removal, and then nominate for deletion, because someone could use the material as a hint for finding sourcing. The project is clearly a major one--but I am going here by internal evidence, especially a check of the numerous English translations which are included. I'm not aware of another site where this can be found--let alone the ones into other languages That several different translations of choice--including those in different languages can be simultaneously displayed for a single verse is another excellent feature. It does not include all the translations indicated in our article List of Translations of the Quran, but it includes most of the recent ones. It cannot be that there are not references to a project of this magnitude, and we will need to look for them. In the meantime, we could merge this article as it stands to the List of translations. We need not worry about losing the material, for if it should be --unwisely in my opinion--deleted, I will userify it. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "notes" were being used incorrectly. For example:

"Matt57 visits Wikipedia very often. <ref>http://wikipedia.org</ref>.

This was what was being done. Notes are there for a reason, they are references which are talking about the article in a significant manner. There was none of that in any of the links/refs I removed. It was all WP:OR. You're welcome to revert the changes I made but you will find there's no significant coverage in any reliable source for this website and that is the requirement for inclusion here. Yes it is good information but it is all unreferenced because references dont exist and hence, its not notable and therefore, it should not be present on Wikipedia. One can create an unreferenced "about" page for any small website for that matter.

"that is acceptable as a primary source"

No sorry, an article that is solely based on a primary source is like me creating "The Life of Matt57 and why he likes the Quran" and I could put up a Geocities website and that would be deleted in about 0.5 seconds here - and you know that.

"but we do not delete it immediately if merely unsourced unless it is contentious"

Alright, I ask you then: If I created that article "The Life of Matt57 and why he likes the Quran" and I wrote in there that 'Matt57 was a great guy who worked hard', these are not contentious statements so could that too never be removed and would the article stay? Also I gave the creator of the article about 10 days to find references and I let him know of these problems so he had time to come up with the references. He tried something and it was obvious and I knew before hand that references didnt exist for it. This was simply not a notable website.

I'm shocked that you are an administrator and are defending an article which has NO significant coverage in ANY reliable source. Whats going on? What is your motive for the defense of this article? Why should "The Life of Matt57 and why he likes the Quran" be deleted while this article should be kept? Interesting.

"The project is clearly a major one"

So are many other websites. The fact that you think the project is major, is of no importance. Once again, Wikipedia:Notability (web) is the criteria and you dont seem to be aware of a very core principle here on Wikipedia: multiple significant references from reliable sources are the only thing we go by when we want to decide whether something deserves its own article or not. Are you aware of that, DGG?

"including those in different languages can be simultaneously displayed for a single verse is another excellent feature. "

Once again, that has an importance level of exactly 0.00%, if Wikipedia:Notability (web) is not being satisfied.

"In the meantime, we could merge this article as it stands to the List of translations."

That is fine and is a smaller problem than what we have here: a non-notable website having its own article. Even then, if that "List" article mentioned the QOP and QOP has no coverage in multiple reliable sources, someone could challenge and say "this is not a reliable website and is not worthy of mention". Again, thats a smaller and different problem. Here we're deciding if this deserves its own article or not.

"I have therefore used my own judgement, and restored these sections"

No, you didnt do anything. You're welcome to restore anything though if it is sourced. Remember unsourced content can be deleted if its veracity is challenged due to a lack of a source. You saw that I deleted unsourced information here and nominated it for deletion and for some reason you've decided to defend it for some non-rational reason, while not caring about what the main problem here is: Wikipedia:Notability (web). I mentioned that reason in my nomination above. Since you have said the article should be kept, could you now tell me how the article fulfils this criteria? I'll wait for a response to that. Thank you.

My own thoughts now: Yes this is a good project with lots of translations and so is a good resource. However, Wikipedia only has articles on subjects that are notable. If we want to decide whether this deserves its own article or not, it has to fulfil Wikipedia:Notability (web). Do you disagree? Please remember to tell me how this website meets this criteria. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This seems to be an excellent and extremely useful resource. I am quite surprised that it appears not to be notable. Perhaps the main problem is that the reliable sources writing about it are mostly not in English? The creator may not be aware that reliable sources in languages other than English are acceptable to us. I searched for Arabic and Turkish article titles, but unfortunately I did not find anything that looked like a reliable source discussing the site. Perhaps the project is also known under a slightly different name? Hans Adler 16:04, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes its a good resource and a collection of Quran translations however there are no reliable sources that mention it. I can safely say non-english languages also do not mention it. And no, its not known under another name. There are tonnes of other useful resources websites but Wikipedia doesnt make pages on them if they are not notable. Being a good resource and being notable are two separate issues. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I rarely give IAR reasoning in AfD debates, I think this one suffices. Cross-religious understanding certainly promotes human knowledge and world peace, and I don't see that the encyclopedia will be diminished by having an article on a possibly non-notable website that is clearly trying to improve global knowledge of an unquestionably notable religious text. If it's useful, the sources will materialize eventually. If not, then let's revisit this debate in six months. Jclemens (talk) 20:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have argued similarly if I hadn't realised that this article is 2 years old! Hans Adler 21:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JClemens, you're now the 2nd admin here who has wanted to keep this article. "Cross-religious understanding certainly promotes human knowledge and world peace". That is of no importance if the website does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (web). It will be interesting to see what the closing admin does. Whoever they are, if you decide to do a keep, be sure to tell everyone why it meets Wikipedia:Notability (web) because if it doesnt, I'm going to start putting articles for websites for my aunts and uncles too. I'm shocked at admins like DGG and JClemens who are blatantly ignoring Wikipedia core policies. The site is not notable, trust me. I gave the creator a lot of time to establish notability. NOTABILITY - its a core concept, please remember that, especially if you are an administrator. There are COUNTLESS number of websites that talk about the "notable" Quran but we dont have articles on them if they are not notable. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please chill out and be civil. Notability is important, but not overriding. Hans Adler makes a much better point, and makes it much better than you do. Jclemens (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being civil. All I'm asking for is proof of notability. Notability is a core policy, not an optional policy. The policy says: "if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not be included in Wikipedia.". If you think notability is not important and is optional and can be ignored at times, can you give me just one example of a long-standing article which is here but not notable? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok people were being sensitive so I took out some of my comments. Could you now please give some proof of notability. I have a feeling this will not end it and I will have to go the long way and nominate it for deletion again (wasting everyone's time) and then it will finally end up in a delete, which is what should have been the first time. I say that because I know there are no references for it and hence its not notable. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No English speaking newspapers seem to be mentioning this. If someone could search in whatever the most common language majority Muslim countries speak, they'd almost certainly find coverage there. A lot of notable people/organizations were involved in this project. Also its notable because "The Online Quran Project is the first website to offer a Qur’an text with full diacritics (tajweed) rules." Dream Focus 23:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are no multiple reliable sources that talk about this website in a significant way. Simply linking to a site does not make it notable (assuming those links exist). And this:

first website to offer a Qur’an text with full diacritics

is not a valid criteria for notability. The criteria is simple: multiple reliable sources have to talk about the website in a significant way. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete. I guess this project deserves more attention, but as it doesn't seem to have received this attention even after two years, I don't see how we can keep it. There isn't really anything much we can say about it without doing original research or just relying on what the site says. The article is currently linked from many other Wikipedia articles. I think that in most of these an external link to the site is appropriate because it provides the full text of the Quran translations discussed in those articles and makes it very convenient to compare them with others and the original. Hans Adler 07:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"There isn't really anything much we can say about it without doing original research or just relying on what the site says. "

Thank you for seeing the obvious and what others who want to do a keep have failed to see. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This website very useful and I think it should be kept. Aceleo ^{(talk•contribs)}

'Usefulness' is not a criteria here, Wikipedia:Notability (web) is. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. -DJSasso (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Western International Hockey League

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

This is a WP:BUNDLE deletion for articles pertaining to Western International Hockey League which is a "senior level ice hockey league" that existed for twenty years. The user who expanded this article to its current state also created articles for each season, and each team. My reason : None of the articles appear to meet the standards of notability in athletics. Tim 1357 ^talk 00:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Reso lute 01:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the League article, no opinion, leaning delete, on the season articles at present (should they ever formally be added to this nom). The WP:NSPORT essay does not have guidelines regarding ice hockey leagues, so I'm not certain why you are using it as a basis to argue for deletion. Regardless, this was one of the top senior leagues in Canada at a time when senior hockey held considerably greater prestige as compared to today. Teams from this league competed for the Allan Cup at a time when it was second only to the Stanley Cup in prestige. Easily a notable league. Reso lute 01:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you intend to batch nominate the season articles, you are required to mark each for deletion and point them to this debate. Reso lute 01:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the league article and team articles and leaning towards delete on season articles. The league is clearly notable. This was one of the highest levels of hockey you could play during that time frame. And I also agree with Resolute that its puzzling that you are trying to use the NSPORT standards for notability reason when they are for athletes not leagues. Not to mention that NSPORT is about when you can assume that sources exist, not the level at which something must be to have an article. It is a misconception that some people use that the notability subpages are a level something must meet to have an article. Not to mention NSPORT hasn't even been ratified as a replacement for ATHLETE yet. -DJSasso (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep league article and each teams article per above. Not sure on season articles. Patken4 (talk) 03:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The league itself is an encyclopedic topic. As with others, not sure on the season articles. Mandsford (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the League article, certainly. The season articles (or at least the one I clicked on) are rather interesting and far more comprehensive than I would have believed. I find it hard to believe that they meet notability, unfortunately. David V Houston (talk) 13:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article but something needs to be done with the season by season articles. It is probably not someone will tackle but they need to be short summaries with a notable highlight. --Stormbay (talk) 21:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm no admin, and I'm an involved party, I can see that the consensus here is to keep the league article. I was to ambitious with this one, and I may open another AFD for the season articles. If a non-inovlved party could close this, I'd greatly appreciate it. Tim 1357 ^talk 23:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep the band article, merge and redirect the album articles. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awaken (band)

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

No indication that band meets the notability criteria. Further there is a major contributor so theres also a conflict of interest. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are dependent on the subject (band's albums):

Maashatra11 (talk) 16:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question - for the COI issue, I assume you are talking about one or both of the two editors who have contributed most to the article, but how do you know it's a true conflict of interest rather than just someone who is interested in promoting the band? I looked at the talk pages for the articles and users and there are some vague indications but not enough for proof, IMO. (Note: I agree that notability for the band is a legit concern, regardless.) DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about a sole editor which is also the article's creator, User:Meoneko. If you take a deeper look, you can see that all other contributors were trying to fix up/wikify the article.

In any case - Isn't "just someone who is interested in promoting the band" the exact definition of a COI? Cheers, --Maashatra11 (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I guess "interested in promoting..." was a poor choice of words on my part. Maybe "interested in spreading information about..." is closer to what I was thinking. For example, I am "interested in spreading information about" Led Zeppelin so I am a member of their WP project, but that doesn't mean I have a conflict of interest. But you have uncovered some evidence that there might be a conflict of interest with this little band under discussion here. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete (band and albums) - the sources that I can read appear to be self-promotional across the board so it looks like the band has bot received independent and reliable third-party coverage. But my vote is "weak" because there are some sources available in Vietnamese, Japanese, and French which might be reliable but I can't read them. Note that group member Fabien Remblier has his own article at French WP so maybe the band should be mentioned in passing over there. Also, the conflict of interest can be a serious issue but is not a reason for deletion in itself. There are different resolution procedures for that problem: see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:04, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MeoNeko (article creator)'s comments Awaken / Gilles Snowcat are underground acts, therefore they don't match the notability of big acts like Deep Purple or Michael Jackson, this can't be argued. However, there are several facts that allow them, in my opinion, to have a place among the Wikipedia pages:

Notable facts: -Gilles Snowcat sang twice on stage with Al Stewart (the singer of "Year Of The Cat") in November 1999: http://home.scarlet.be/~ping9712/awaken-alstu99-engl.htm

-Google hits: -"Gilles Snowcat": 7350 -"雪猫ジル" (Gilles Snowcat in Japanese): 24800 -"Gilles Snowcat" + "Awaken": 2160 -"Party In Lyceum's Toilets": 570 -"Tales Of Acid Ice Cream": 248 -"Beppu Nights": 14.800 -"別府NIGHTS" ("Beppu Nights" in Japanese): 3580

Not notable but interesting facts: -The Awaken page has no promotional purpose: I try to use a neutral tone following Wikipedia guidelines and to include into the "Wikipedia universe" to make it useful with hyperlinks to as many Wiki pages as possible. However I'm still willing to improve the pages following your advices;

-All the facts are official and verifiable among Belgian copyright society SABAM or online shops like iTunes and CD Baby;

-Most of a song lyrics from albums are available online on several sites from several countries, on which I have no control. A Google serach can give you more light on this;

-Awaken / Snowcat are active since 1988, which means 22 years. This is no new act trying to use Wiki to promote itself;

-Crumar synthesizer user: the Crumar synths are now rarely used and I thought it was uselful to mention the musicians whostill play them officially nowadays, no matter their level of notability;

I thank you for having taken time to read this and I am looking forward for more comments.

Gilles MeoNeko (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More on notability As mentioned earlier, band musican Fabien Remblier was a notable TV series actor in the 90's, on the TF1 channel. He played on a seire called "Premiers Baisers" (a page on the French Wiki exists). MeoNeko (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question- I suppose you're talking about yourself when you say "Gilles" or "Gilles Snowcat"? --Maashatra11 (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answer- Yes, I started the article and submitted, for the reasons I mentioned previously. After we debated about this for a few days, I still think that the "Awaken (band)" page and the related albums pages still have their place on Wikipedia. The "Gilles Snowcat" page, on the other hand, may look inappropriate since the musical information is already featured on the "Awaken (band)" page, and I would not be against its deletion if it was voted that way.

On the debate about promoting vs informing, the frontier is actually very thin, since once you spread an info about anything, you contribute to promote it in a way. When you spread information about Led Zeppelin, you offer them exposure that can is, in a way, promotion. That's why I try to keep the tone as neutral as possible. MeoNeko (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BAND + WP:GARAGE.--Canniba loki 23:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been updated with more references to several external websites. I still think that the Awaken (band) page has a reason to be kept in Wikipedia but I agree that it needs a strong revisin to match the Wiki criteria more efficiently. As for one more notable fact: Awaken is a client of John Sellekaers's Metarc. MeoNeko (talk) 07:41, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This musical group has appeared in a music magazine or a newspaper?--200.139.78.207 (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: at least Rif-Raf, Mofo, Prog-Resiste, Kwad'9, Town Miyazaki (Japan). I can provide scans of those if requested. Maybe other mags/newspapers but I don't have track of everything.MeoNeko (talk) 13:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advice to those who are working on this article: If you can uncover old newspapers and magazine that provide significant coverage in reliable sources about Awaken, please scan the newspaper articles to your computer, and then upload them to Flickr or any other photo-sharing site. Then post the links to this AfD. Even if you already have an account on these sites, you should create another one if you don't want your real-world identity linked to your Wikipedia one.
These sources must be independent of the band or its members. Myspace and Facebook do not aid in establishing notability. Press releases do not establish notability. Only coverage in books, magazines, or newspapers will establish notability. This coverage cannot be only passing mentions (eg. one or two sentences); it must be at least several paragraphs long.
If reliable sources about this band cannot be found within the next seven days (by 20 May 2010), this article will be deleted. Cunard (talk) 05:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Press scans: Here are the paper press scans you requested. You can also find them there along with webzines articles about Awaken CDs and webzines articles about Awaken's mp3 songs. I hope this helps. MeoNeko (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Cunard (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you include the scans you posted on Photobucket as sources in the article? Remember to use Wikipedia:Inline citations. Thanks! Cunard (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the substantial coverage in reliable sources. This article from Prog-Résiste, this article from Mofo, this article from Rif-Raf, and this article from Koid'9 provide significant coverage about Awaken and its albums. Wikipedia:Notability has been fully established. Cunard (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are these reliable sources? I never heard of those magazines (and neither did Wikipedia), and they are not in english. I am also noticing you that User:Meoneko acknowledges being the frontman of the band.--Maashatra11 (talk) 12:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About these sources. Dear Cunard and Maashatra11, I can give you the offcial information about the paper magazines I scanned, just give me 2 or 3 days. You will be able to verify / investigate the official character of them. Thank you. MeoNeko (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the band's article, merge and redirect the album articles to the band. Meoneko has conclusively proven that the band have received significant coverage in reliable sources so they definitely meet WP:GNG. I haven't yet seen any evidence that the albums do. Alzarian16 (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge albums is a good idea. And the paper magazines Rif-Raf, Prog-Resiste, Koid 9 I mentioned have websites. Mofo, an equivalent to Rif-Raf, seems to have ceased publication. MeoNeko (talk) 19:56, 21 May 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. Tim Song (talk) 02:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne C. Spiggle

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

Non-notable minor local officeholder; no sign of notability outside the county commission's meeting room. Orange Mike | Talk 00:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Enough google hits and Gnews hits to verify notability. Moorsmur (talk) 23:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You get a lot more search hits if you drop the middle initial: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Spiggle's site - BalthCat (talk) 06:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - but under what part of WP:BIO would we justify any claim of notability? President of a state medical society? Local officeholder in one county? Raw Googlehits don't constitute substantial coverage in reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You appear to have mistaken me for someone who made any statement at all. I was considering the value of being a long term president of a state medical society, but he was only president for one year. So, instead of making a pronouncement, I passed on a link that might be helpful to others in coming to a conclusion. I'm not sure what's with the "raw googlehits" part either. Did I mention google? On the other hand... (why am I rebutting the rebuttal of something I didn't say? *sigh*) reliable sourcing is fixable (see WP:ATD) so I'm not sure why you'd have made the statement even if I HAD quoted significant results in google. You could probably get away with "This is BLP so we absolutely NEED RS." but otherwise... - BalthCat (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has been president of the state medical society, and is a county commissioner now running for re-election. Both good things. But neither of those qualifies him as notable per [WP:GNG]] or WP:Politician. News and Google hits are all simply local stories about the local election - not enough to confer notability. We're getting a lot of non-notable politicians with deletable wikipages right now; it's an election year. --MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and, for completeness, WP:BIO as well. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:42, 14 May 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. According less weight to the argument of WP:SPAs and taking into consideration the effective rebuttals by Nuujinn, I find a consensus to delete. Tim Song (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EFront (eLearning software)

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)

Promotion for non-notable software product, article by company employee. No independent references are given, and no significant coverage can be found. In its previous AfD, [23] and [24] were pointed out, but none of these are significant. Haakon (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious advertising: ....designed to help create online courses with opportunities for rich interaction. eFront comes with a distinctive icon-based user interface that is intuitive to use. The platform offers a wide range of features from content creation, test builder, project management, extended statistics, internal messaging system, forum, chat, surveys and more. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Hello and thanks for letting me share my option before you proceed to any deletion.

First of all I do not intent to hide the fact that I support this project and I can certainly accept any criticism and feedback regarding the neutrality and quality of the topic. However, this is a well known project and I post here a few evidence for its importance.

1. First of all eFront is a SCORM 1.2 certified and one of the first SCORM 2004/4th edition compliant products You can find such evidence on ADL's website http://www.adlnet.gov/Technologies/scorm/Custom%20Pages/SCORM%20Adopters.aspx or at http://webapps.adlnet.gov/SCORMAdopters/Adopter.aspx?i=539

2. Jfusion (a known Joomla plugin) and Amember (well known payment solution) have dedicated forums to support their eFront integrations:

http://www.jfusion.org/index.php/forums/viewforum.php?f=53

http://amember.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8632

3. The product is one of the highest ranked systems on opensourcecms

http://php.opensourcecms.com/scripts/details.php?scriptid=222&name=eFront

4. The product is part of Brandon's Hall LMS review and Capterra's LMS directory

http://www.brandon-hall.com/publications/lmskb/lmskb_firms.shtml

http://www.capterra.com/learning-management-system-software/spotlight/18528/Efront/Epignosis?srchid=259808&pos=1

5. The system can be found on several open-source software directories. I include a few of them below

http://osliving.com/content-management/e-learning/efront/

http://sourceforge.net/projects/efrontlearning/

http://www.ohloh.net/projects/11528

6. Techworld had an indepth review for several eLearning tools including eFront

http://www.techworld.com.au/article/223565/10_open_source_e-learning_projects_watch

7. Alexa report the project's portal as the 84,124 most visited site on the internet today

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/efrontlearning.net#

8. There are several blog posts concerning the pro's and con's of the project.

http://daveperso.mediaenglishonline.com/2009/12/23/getting-your-own-lms-part-2-efront/

http://frumpyhausfrau.com/business/efront-lands-in-the-hot-seat/

http://techno-realism.blogspot.com/2008/11/open-source-learning-management-systems.html

http://kavitaragoobar.blogspot.com/2010/03/efront-learning.html

http://www.zimbio.com/Ecommerce+software+Solution/articles/15/Open+Source+LMS+Beyond+Moodle

9. The project is watched by several security lists which informs about security issues

http://securityreason.com/exploitalert/7985

10. Known hosting providers offer dedicated support for hosting eFront on their infrastructure

http://www.siteground.com/efront-hosting.htm

http://www.facebook.com/notes/siteground/xmb-efront-and-glfusion-at-sitegroundcom/73372089834

11. Last but not least, the project itself has an active discussion forum that can be found at: http://forum.efrontlearning.net and a simple google search can reveal thousand of web-sites that are powered from the software (just try a google search with allinurl: "index.php?ctg=contact") Papagel (talk) — Papagel (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Ok, but none of those are keep reasons; what's needed are cases of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Haakon (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but significant coverage is a bit controversial under various aspects. The fact that thousand public web-sites have installed and use this software is or not a "significant-coverage"?. I spend some more time today on the web for other sources of information for eFront and I post here a few more findings that may help make a more informative decision:

Brandon-Hall eLearning Trends Research include eFront on the list of the well known open-source learning management system:

http://discovery-thru-elearning.blogspot.com/2009/07/learning-management-systems-trends-and.html

Genbeta, a very well known tech news portal in Spain posted a detailed article regarding eFront on March 2010

http://www.genbeta.com/herramientas/efront-intuitiva-plataforma-de-e-learning

Another article about eFront in Spanish

http://www.aplicacionesempresariales.com/efront-mas-rapido-y-productivo.html

eFront was part of the research work on evaluating learning management systems with test-tools

Kor, B. & Tanrikulu, Z. (2008). Evaluation of Learning Management Systems with Test Tools. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 5261-5266). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.

A few more blog mentions of eFront

http://barrysampson.com/2009/04/open-source-lms-10-alternatives-to-moodle/

http://dilancreativo.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/efront-plataforma-de-aprendizaje-online/

http://loquenecesita.com/2010/03/efront-plataforma-de-aprendizaje/

The CENTRE FOR LEARNING & PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGIES includes eFront in its resource directory:

http://www.c4lpt.co.uk/Directory/Tools/instructional.html

Edutools (an lms comparison web-portal) includes eFront on its short list of LMSs

http://www.edutools.info/item_list.jsp?pj=4

Another LMS comparison article in French that includes eFront

http://www.lms-selection.com/fr2/?p=74

Eduwiki refers to eFront as "probably the most user friendly LMS"

http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/LMS

Delicious has assembled 371 different bookmarks for eFront's website

http://delicious.com/url/4cca5fc536ee79166c46b65d15210808

You can find several eFront references on search engines by using as keywords something like "eFront LMS". Otherwise, and due to the fact that there were other services on the past that used the same name the results can be fuzzy.

Papagel (talk)

Keep, I am active in the educational technology space as well as being a former developer for the Moodle LMS project. I find that this article is useful. I do agree that some of the verbiage of the article is written in a marketing/spammy tone and should be corrected as well as including the more notable references provided above where applicable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skippybosco (talk • contribs) — Skippybosco (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Ok, but you finding it "useful" is not a keep reason; what's needed are cases of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Haakon (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your response. It seems there are numerous links above from the previous poster which I would assume would be sufficient? A more recent one, while they have not yet posted the public link to the announcement, Brandon Hall (http://www.brandon-hall.com) just awarded eFront the bronze award for "Best Advance in Learning Management Technology for Small and Medium-Sized Businesses". It is a fairly big deal for the e-learning community, which I assumed would be the populous interested in this article, does that qualify it as "significant" or "reliable" for these purposes?

Delete, no hits on efrontlearning or efrontlearning.net in google news, nothing on "efront lms" after the mid 1980s. However, if this efront is related to the efront mentioned in [this], it may be notable on that basis. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skippybosco (talk)

While used internationally, eFront is developed by a Greek company (Epignosis). As such, you will find a result for eFront in Google News dated April 27, 2010 here (http://www.google.com/news/search?cf=all&ned=el_gr&hl=el&q=efront+lms). This specific news article is in reference to the earlier posters #1 link regarding being one of the first LMS in the industry to achieve SCORM 2004/4th edition compliance.

Papagel (talk)

If absence from google news could work as a reject reason for accepting a software article then more than half of them should be deleted (since it covers mainly big media). Also, there are a series of wikipedia articles for similar open-source elearning packages with similar coverage (e.g, like Atutor or Dokeos).
I would suggest a Google Scholar for several research work that mention or have as main topic the system or a direct google search using as keywords something like "eFront LMS" or "efrontlearning". Otherwise, and due to the fact that there were other services on the past that used the same name the results can be fuzzy.I include two such search links below:
Google search for "efront learning management system" google search
Google scholar search for "efront learning management system" Google Scholar Search.

Just one more bit of information regarding notability. Brandon-hall research just released the winners for "2009 Excellence in Learning Technology Awards". eFront won a bronze metal on the category for best advance for small-medium enterprises

http://www.brandon-hall.com/awards/award_winners/lta2009_winners.shtml

Comment I'm not sure how being compliant to a standard is supposed to confer notability. A general google search reveals expected advertising and discussion, most from various vendor sites and fora. I took a quite look at google scholar, what I found were papers about elearing that mention efront in passing as the software used. As for the award, I'll just say Brandon-Hall seems to hand out a lot of medals. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF in regard to other possible non-notable software packages. I'm not convinced that this is notable. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Compliance to a standard (especially an early adopter on a widely used standard) guarantees at least some dedication from the developers on the related field (in this case eLearning). The main question here is the following: among a series of articles about open-source elearning systems does this one satisfies the criteria for a valid contribution or not?

Papagel (talk)

Comment Dedication does not establish notability, and what other articles exist isn't really relevant. What is relevant here is significant coverage by reliable sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are several published research papers that either have as main topic eFront or refer to it. I assembled a list from scholar.google.com:

Zaharias, P (2007). Heuristic evaluation in e-learning context: Selecting the appropriate tasks and reporting usability problems. International Conference on eLearning (ICEL) 2007 (main topic)

Kor, B. & Tanrikulu, Z. (2008). Evaluation of Learning Management Systems with Test Tools. In J. Luca & E. Weippl (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2008 (pp. 5261-5266). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. (major topic)

Ozarslan, Y., Ozan, O. (2010). eFront Öğrenme Yönetim Sistemi, Akademik Bilisin 2010 (In turkish) (main topic)

Fontanin, M. (2008). Developing an English course for in-service librarians, Library Management (reference)

Martens, B. & Acthen, H (2008). Do you moodle? 26th eCAADe Conference (reference)

Matsunaga, N & Kwan, A. (2008). 6th AECEF Symposium in Vilnius (reference)

Williams, G., A Multi-factor Authentication Model for E-learners and Virtual Learning Systems.Federated Approach.Proceedings of Student Mobility and ICT: Can E-learning overcome barriers of Life-Long learning? Maastricht University (reference)

e-Learning Delivery of the Course “Advanced Multimedia Systems Design” SK Toh - 2008 - sst.unisim.edu.sg http://sst.unisim.edu.sg:8080/dspace/handle/123456789/116 (reference)

Malik, N (2008). Discovering Dependencies in Courseware Repositories, M.Tech.Dissertation, Department of Computer Science and Engineering Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay (reference)

Finally, eFront appears as one of the suggested LMS's from the Nationwide Mortgage Licensing System (NMLS) on a related report:

Functional Specification for NMLS Approved Instructor-Led Online Courses

http://publish.nationwidelicensingsystem.org/courseprovider/Course%20Provider%20Resources/Online%20Functional%20Spec.pdf Papagel (talk)

Comment. Please. I couldn't get to all of those, but none that I could access do anything to establish notability:

Kor, B. & Tanrikulu, Z is a presentation about tools used to test various elearning software packages, the abstract is here.

Ozarslan, Y., Ozan, O. is basically a product review based largely on efront's web pages. [25]

SK Toh's research paper is an ENG499 CAPSTONE ELECTRONICS PROJECT, that mentions efront once, in a list of vendors: "Open-source Virtual Learning Environments (VLE): ATutor, Claroline, Dokeos, eFront, The eLearning XHTML editor (eXe), KEWL GLO Maker, Moodle, OLA T, Sakai Project, Virtual Training Studio, WebPA, Xerte" [26]

Fontanin, M., is an analysis of blending learning, and used moodle as the test LNS. The article mentions efront once, in a list: "Moodle is not the only LMS available nowadays; many others could have been used, both open source (such as ETutor, Claroline, eFront and so on) and commercially developed (such as Blackboard, eCollege, Learn.com etc.)"

Williams, G. is about secure VLEs, and mentions efront once, in a list: "Common VLE tools for developing and driving VLEs include but not limited to blackboard, firstclass, EFRONT, WEBCT (Part of blackboard, Dokeos, Cyber Extension." [27]

Matsunaga, N & Kwan, A is also about blended learning in general, and mentions efront once, in a list: "A simple search on the internet for “Moodle” [7], “ILIAS” [8], “eFront” [9], “Sakai” [10], or “Dokeos” [11] will reveal much information and sources of free VLEs." [28]

Malik is a master's thesis on searching, and the article mentions efront once, in a list: "There are other open source LMSs also available such as Moodle, SCORM, eFront etc. Every type of LMS supports the following features"/ [29]

The NMLS report (you guessed it) mentions efront once, in a list, as an item in List of Learning Management Systems, found in Appendix A.

None of these, I think, meet the bar of significant coverage in a reliable source. Passing reference does not establish notability. If you searched the web for my name IRL you find many hits, but I'm notable. Still not convinced, sorry. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Controversy makes the world go round :) You can check next to the references I added what discovered papers seem to have eFront as a main topic and which have a reference to eFront. This obviously is not an exhausted list but pieces of information that together (and combined with other sources) tell a story.

Especially the first three papers are peer-reviewed papers that cover eFront in some considerable extend. I don't understand the point made for the paper (Evaluation of Learning Management Systems with Test Tools) about being a "presentation"- this is a peer-reviewed article on EDMEDIA 2008 (World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia & Telecommunications).

Also, regarding the paper from Ozarslan, Y. and Ozan, O they specifically mention on the abstract "In this study, the open source learning management system eFront is evaluated based on literature review and authors experiences during 2008-2009 academic year".

About the NMLS report your remark is a bit unfair. The report has an extensive list of characteristics that are expected from an LMS that is compliant with their needs. At the beginning of Apendix A they state "The following is a list of Learning Management Systems (LMS) that a course provider may want to consider in order to meet many of the conditions associated with offering instructor-led pre-licensure courses". It seems they have done some due diligence before suggesting. On top of this, for each LMS they also provide a short description of their findings instead of just a reference.

Finally, the first paper dealing with "Heuristic Evaluation in eLearning Context" uses eFront as the main evaluation medium. I could find only a part of the paper online from the conference proceedings at: http://books.google.gr/books?id=QX_e-RlW89UC&pg=PA527&lpg=PA527&dq=%22Heuristic+evaluation+in+e-learning+context%22&source=bl&ots=GYnNO2dLg2&sig=OalgBTleLwFBd3ydwHpfyvttOz8&hl=el&ei=UJfiS73OJoOlOKPq5NsN&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Heuristic%20evaluation%20in%20e-learning%20context%22&f=false (pages 527-534)

Papagel (talk)

Regarding the "Heuristic Evaluation in eLearning Context" provide a good translation of the introduction/abstract and relevant section from the above, showing that efront's software is the topic of the paper, not just a vehicle used for the study of something else. Likewise, if you can provide access to Kor, B. & Tanrikulu, Z. I'll be happy to take a look, but I can't get to it. Ozarslan, Y. and Ozan, O is really not a scholarly work, they have 4 references, two of which go to efront. It's just a review of features. As for NMLS I stand by my reading of it.

You need to provide significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources you're referencing are pretty reliable, but in my opinion the coverage is not significant--these articles with the exception of Ozarslan, Y. and Ozan, O aren't about efront's LMS, they are about other subjects and mention efront's LMS. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A software system can rarely be the only context of a scientific paper; it is usually combined with some sort of evaluation under several dimensions.

Since I could not find the "Heuristic Evaluation in eLearning Context" article I asked the author to send me the part of the paper that directly relates with eFront. Here is the link to the related part (3 pages): http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B8vrY4OEQsbRYjE1NGJkZmQtNzkyMy00ZjAzLWFkMjMtZmRhNjVlMWEyOGM0&hl=en

I'll try to get a full copy of Kor, B. & Tanrikulu, Z paper as well.

Regarding the paper from Ozarslan, Y and Ozan, O it was presented in a Turkish Conference - I don't know how the number of references can be a valid criterion for the paper quality. For your reference here is the main page of this conference: http://ab2010.mugla.edu.tr/

Finally, there is an MSC thesis on University of Crete called "Towards standards based e-Learning tools and technologies" that deals with the eLearning standards in general but also with the implementation of SCORM 2004/4th edition inside eFront. I got the permission from the author to add a link here to this document: http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B8vrY4OEQsbRN2JjMTM4Y2UtODk5YS00NjdiLTg3ZjYtN2ZhNzI1MGZjZDFl&hl=en Papagel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Re: "A software system can rarely be the only context of a scientific paper; it is usually combined with some sort of evaluation under several dimensions." Yes, and there's a reason for that--software projects are generally not of interest in scientific papers. One one of the articles we have discussed, Ozarslan, Y and Ozan, O, is about efront's software. The rest mention it in lists, or use it as a tool for some other purpose, but are not about it--and for that reason, they do not, in my opinion, help establish WP:notability of the software or the company behind it. Usually, notability for software projects is established by reviews from reputable sources. You have found lots of web sites, portal, blogs, bit and pieces, but I see no such reviews.

Re: "Heuristic Evaluation in eLearning Context", where's the rest of the article? It looks at first glance that this article is like the others, and not really about efront's software. Same for the master's thesis, it appears to be about scorm, not efront's LMS (although I readily admit that I didn't read the thesis, just the abstract, tables of contents and glanced around a bit).

So we're back to Ozarslan, Y and Ozan, O as apparently the best source. Yes, for a scholarly work, references are important, both the ones used in the paper and number of times the paper itself is referenced in other scholarly works. As a scholarly work, this seems to be very weak. As a software review, it is also weak, since the authors are not professional software reviewers, and this work doesn't appear in a reputable source oriented to software packages. So I'm still not convinced. You have my sympathy, but not my support. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has concentrated on scientific literature due to the exact fact that it is a reliable source of notability. As discussed on notability section on wikipedia "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". There are (at least) 3 scientific papers and 1 master thesis that have extended sections that discuss eFront under different angles (features, usability, standards). And there are several more scientific papers that refer to it.

Apart from this, there are a lot of other pieces of information reported throughout this discussion including reviews on tech sites like techworld and genbeta.

On a personal note and no matter what this was an interesting discussion. Papagel (talk)

Yes, indeed. As you say, there are lots of pieces. You left out the first line "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail," and as I've said, I believe you have one article, Ozarslan, Y and Ozan, O, that meets that criteria. Personally, I don't regard it as a good source, neither fish nor fowl, but it is a source. General notability guidelines also state "Multiple sources are generally expected" with a note to the effect that a paucity of sources suggests a better use of the information would be in an article on a general topic, eg. inclusion in Learning Management Systems. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Since this has gotten long, here's a summary of the votes so far:

Delete Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003!

Keep Papagel (talk (original author of the article)

Keep Skippybosco (talk) • Skippybosco (talk) contribs) has made few or no other edits

Delete Nuujinn (talk)

Please let me know if I missed anyone, --Nuujinn (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested on the top of this topic consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

I would like to comment a bit on the last bit of criticism. Wikipedia needs resources that deals with the proposed system directly and in detail. I do believe that all 3 papers and the master thesis are valid eFront sources since they cover the system in depth under different angles (functionality, usability and standards). For example, the paper from Zaharias is about usability in eLearning context. It does *not* use eFront as a medium to report on something else. eFront is an essential part of its report and the system which is both examined and benefited from the findings. The same stands for the paper from Kor, B. & Tanrikulu, Z. (Evaluation of Learning Management Systems with Test Tools). Since the scope of the paper is indeed to evaluate learning management systems this cannot be considered a distant but rather a direct reference to the included systems. Finally, the master thesis does not passively use eFront but it directly analyzes its architecture and extend it to include SCORM 2004 support. Papagel (talk)

If by "the thesis" you mean Towards Standards Based eLearning, it's 108 pages and mentions efront 5 times, once in a footnote reference to your project's web page. I do not believe that is significant coverage.

In the Zacharias paper, from what I can tell from the limited view I get from google, efront appears three times, and I think once is an acknowlegement. From what I have read of it, the paper does not appear to be about efront, and the coverage is not, in my opinion, significant.

Regarding Evaluation of Learning Management Systems with Test Tools, you said "I'll try to get a full copy of Kor, B. & Tanrikulu, Z paper as well". Did you get a copy of the paper, or are you basing your interpretation on the abstract (which makes it appear that the paper is not about efront, but rather about evaluating elearning software, and happens to use efront among others as test cases)?

I'm sorry to have to say this, and I'm assuming that you are acting good faith, but you might ask yourself whether your conflict of interest about this topic might perhaps skew your judgment as to the quality of these sources somewhat. I'm just not seeing significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to be as unbiased as possible although certainly this can be difficult. However, perhaps you should question yourself as well regarding being stuck in your initial position. There is a known "anchor" in people decisions that is well explained in a recent book (Predictably Irrational by Dan Ariely).

I will just comment on the MSC thesis since you say "it appears in the thesis only 5 times" - and this counting argument stands as well for the rest of the criticism. You forgot to mention the fact that all the MSC is about extending the system providing as a result a SCORM 2004 compliant eFront. Here is a part of the thesis abstract without any more comments. "This thesis aims to provide a reference implementation of the latest version of the Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM 2004 4th Edition) grounded in a fully functional pre-existent learning management system. For the purpose of this thesis we selected the learning management system eFront which is used in the course “CS-100 Introduction to Computer Science” offered by the Computer Science Department of the University of Crete. Our goal is to accomplish a fully compliant implementation, according to the requirements defined in the SCORM 2004 4th Edition Testing Requirements (TR) Version 1.1" Papagel (talk)

I think that quote supports my point quite well, it seems to me that the thesis is about implementing scorm, and efront is just the vehicle. It certainly does not seem as if there's anything notable about efront that led to their choosing it.

Did you get a copy of Evaluation of Learning Management Systems with Test Tools?

Perhaps I am stuck, certainly I am very stringent in regard to articles about software. I'll think about it. But I'm pretty comfortable about my judgments regarding these sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is a difference in points of view after all and it is certainly pointless to try to enforce ones opinion over the other - at least at this stage. I have asked the authors for a full copy for the "Evaluation of Learning Managements Systems with Test Tools" but I have not heard from them yet. Assuming they will answer timely I will add the full paper to this discussion as well. Papagel (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 redirect to Third Eye Blind. While the "keep" !voters say it will be recreated in a few weeks, it still is WP:CRYSTAL. And as for Polargeo, redirects are cheap, so if it can plausibly aid navigation then we create it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ursa Minor (album)

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

WP:CRYSTAL and parts of WP:HAMMER apply. Some reliable sources state that the album is in production, but there is no confirmed release date in any source, and there is only a potential track list noted at band website and other self-published sources. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The album's existence and name has been confirmed through reliable sources. I do think it'll be years before it comes out, but since it is still in the plans to be made, I think it should be kept. I do think the track list part should probably be deleted though. Sergecross73 (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The article includes a second party reference from Billboard, a music industry paper of record. The article has a title, vague release frame and sources. I don't see the point in deleting it just to re-create in a few weeks. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 03:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Notable and pointless to have to recreate. Geeky Randy (talk) 05:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - these are legit votes and I also think it's dumb to delete an article that will be re-created in the near future. But I think there is still a need to address some specific concerns raised by the two WP guidelines mentioned in my nomination above. Most importantly, no track list and no confirmed release date in either the near future or far future. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply --- Understandable. Perhaps a heavy rewrite with no redundancies and/or rumors—or anything else that could fall into the category of WP:CRYSTAL or WP:HAMMER—would suffice? Geeky Randy (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply --- I've added a few more third party references to the article to help address some of its issues. Any additional help would be appreciated. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply --- I got rid of the track list. Not a song one of the songs was verfified by a reliable source, they were from a blog (which was wrong on a number of occassions, not to mention a song is never really "confirmed" for 3eb albums until it's finalized and in stores...) Sergecross73 (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a few video interviews where Jenkins discusses Ursa Minor, [30] [31] though I am unsure of how to cite videos properly on wikipedia. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as per nominator, album does not exist and may never exist, we don't do it for Britney Spears and we shouldn't do it for these people either. Userfy it and work on it in your userspace and wait to see if it ever is released. Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: The article should be merged with the appropriate article. --White Trillium (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not yet notable. Very easy to recreate when it is realeased and will be minus the speculation. Wikipeida is not for advertising. Polargeo (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Third Eye Blind until there is more to say about the article than it might exist sometime. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we could be sure it will be created then yes a redirect, but we cannot be certain this will be the name yet so delete per WP:Crystal Nobody needs a redirect for an unreleased album. Anyone who is a fan of the band can find them on wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with artist's article Third Eye Blind per WP:NALBUMS: "generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." This does not appear to be an "exceptionally high-profile project" and there is not yet enough verified information about this album for it to be worthy of its own article. Cliff smith ^talk 19:16, 7 May 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) 00:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eminéire

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

Song not notable enough for its own article. The page borders on an attack page, since the song it covers is just a massive attacking rant. Barely falls outside of existing speedy deletion, and I could see a case for IAR speedy deletion here. Gigs (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's no coverage about this song in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:N and WP:RS. --White Trillium (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Philip John (psychiatrist)

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

Fails WP:BIO KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are his publications enough to pass WP:PROF? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know. I have so far been unable to verify that he has any publications at all - the article is basically unsourced. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject does not pass WP:PROF. Also there are no coverage in secondary sources. The president of Indian Medical Association bit is a regional post not that of the national president.--Sodabottle (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of reliable third party sources. I found a couple news stories that quoted him as an expert but that's not enough; it's not something that can be used as a source of information about him. Too many details in this article are too vague (e.g. "at the then largest Private Referral Hospital in the State" instead of actually naming the hospital, "various National and International Conferences as well as for several Workshops, Seminars and CMEs" instead of naming them) making it very difficult to verify anything. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:00, 9 May 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) 00:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Wood (author)

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

Article about a man who wrote two books and holds three patents. No clue as to what those patents are for, and none of the books seem to be notable. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication as to why holding some patents makes him a notable inventor. The books are published through iUniverse, print on demand publisher. There's no indication that these books have received any sort of significant critical review or attention. -- Whpq (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE. Only references fail WP:RELIABLE and patents are for all intents and purposes self published.--Savonneux (talk) 04:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above arguments. i could find only a brief mention in a blog on how to spot phony experts [32]. not even very notorious.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to lack any real coverage.Slatersteven (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hellen Dausen

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

Person is not yet notable, with no guarantee that her winning Miss Tanzania will secure her permanent notability. As WP:NOTE states: "notability is not temporary", so her possibly temporary fame does not make her notable. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI don't think it means that. I think it means that once something is notable that status does not cease to exist over time. That said she has yet to win a major beauty pagent.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify my use of "notability is not temporary": If Miss Dausen does not win Miss Universe, does not do anything else significant with her life, will she be notable in 5 years? No. Therefore, since notability is not temporary, she obviously cannot be notable today. When WP:NOTE discusses the issue of notability not being temporary, it specifically deals with being notable for only one specific event: "...it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability – particularly for living individuals known for one event..." This section on noteability not being temporary later says "similarly an existing topic might be deleted if a later review of evidence suggests that the topic did not actually achieve notability. This can sometimes happen when notability was not discussed earlier in its history or was discussed but there was no clear consensus; when there was a flurry of media reports but it has since become clear the topic was not notable." Obviously this is saying it is preferable to discuss notability early on, as we are doing here. This is why the WP:NOTE section on notability not being temporary is germane here.Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see 0 news hits. Doesn't look notable to me. David V Houston (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephany Avila

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT. 1 ongoing role does not satisfy WP:ENT. nothing in gnews [33]. LibStar (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Maybe in the future ut not right now. Her roles are not substantial, and there a lack of coverage in reliable sources. The article provides this short article. But I could find no additional coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Inkthis. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Wilkinson (designer)

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

Blatant self promotion. At first glance this appears notable, but not one of the references given mention the person in the article. Half the article, and all the references, are about the InkThis event but this is also by the same contributor. Dmol (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Horrible, horrible WP article. Non-notable + self-promotion = nonsense. — Timneu22 · talk 16:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Inkthis, which Wilkinson co-founded (apparently) and which occupies the majority of the current article. This article is certainly not nonsense, and makes a claim to significance of the subject, but as yet fails to provide sufficient achievements to meet WP:ARTIST or sourcing to meet WP:N. Ty 21:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

REdirect this to Inkthis (or vice versa). WE do not need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:21, 8 May 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) 00:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Demonstealer

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

The sources are blogs and promotional websites, and a search of the Google News Archives reveals only trivial mentions, no significant coverage in reliable sources. The article should be deleted for failing WP:MUSICBIO. Hekerui (talk) 09:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 14:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the page should be made into a more informative and objective page like many other underground musicians while the deletion of irrelavent data is certainly inevitable but the deletion of the page isn't justified as the musician is the frontman of quite a few underground acts. And one of his act is signed onto a major independent label Candlelight Records. Hence, the deletion of the page isn't justified at all. Debarunthepsychic (talk | contribs)12:24, 05 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSICBIO (GregJackP (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as per WP:MUSICBIO. Joal Beal (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playboy U

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

A website that never achieved any userbase and no longer exists. Fold into the Playboy article if anything. Shii (tock) 05:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 07:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, little assertion of notability as it is. Kansan (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources from FOX News and USA Today? That seems pretty notable to me. Str8cash (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those articles are just parroting the press release; they don't report on notability. Shii (tock) 16:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, site caused a brief news stir at launch but that can be attributed to brand recognition not actual notability of the site. Jminthorne (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Boyd and the Remembralls

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

Non-notable musical group. Alex Douglas (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 04:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 04:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage. [34]. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- --Darkwind (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Priori Incantatem (album)

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

~~Non-notable EP. Alex Douglas (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
No reliable sources found to verify notability. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 04:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The best source I can find is a brief mention here; not convinced there's enough "significant coverage" in reliable sources to warrant an independent article. Gongshow ^Talk 18:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added the source, in addition to another. Can't we just work on expanding it? I've put a lot of hard work into this page and other HATP.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gen. Quon, see Gongshow's comment above: one article mentions the album; that doesn't prove not notable. Expanding it is pointless without proving notability. Also, I too have been editing HatP articles for some time.. but that doesn't mean Wikipedia's policies don't apply.. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, two pretty good citations isn't too bad, but I will continue to search for more. I think, of all the articles nominated to be deleted, this one would have the best chance of "surviving."--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Live at the Yule Ball

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

~~Non-notable EP. Alex Douglas (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
No reliable sources found to verify notability. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 04:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find significant coverage for this EP in independent reliable sources; fails WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 18:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The album was released by a notable musician. "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." In order to make things better, I'll work on getting some third-party coverage of the EP.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, the use of the words "generally" and "may". Being an EP by a notable band, doesn't guarantee it as notable. Until third-party coverage is found, the article has fails WP:NALBUMS. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyway these articles can be placed on "Needs Verifiable Citation" status for awhile while I work on them? I've put a lot of hard work into these, and I would hate to see them deleted.--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I think it'd just be delaying inevitable deletion. If you haven't found any references yet with all the hard work you've done, and Gongshow, and myself, can't find any either.. I dare say you will 'find' them with more time. Thanks. Alex Douglas (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is Wikipedia:Userfication if these articles are deleted. It'll mean that the articles are moved into your userspace and you will have as long as you like to source them to prove their notability. If you can prove their notability, they can be moved back to mainspace. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Cupboard

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

~~Non-notable EP. Alex Douglas (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
No reliable sources found to verify notability. The band's official website is referenced; primary source. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 04:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find significant coverage for this EP in independent reliable sources; fails WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 18:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The album was released by a notable musician. "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." In order to make things better, I'll work on getting some third-party coverage of the EP.--Gen. Quon (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, the use of the words "generally" and "may". Being an EP by a notable band, doesn't guarantee it as notable. Until third-party coverage is found, the article has fails WP:NALBUMS. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Enchanted Ceiling

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

~~Non-notable EP. Alex Douglas (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
No reliable sources found to verify notability. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 04:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find significant coverage for this EP in independent reliable sources; fails WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 18:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The album was released by a notable musician. "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." In order to make things better, I'll work on getting some third-party coverage of the EP.--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, the use of the words "generally" and "may". Being an EP by a notable band, doesn't guarantee it as notable. Until third-party coverage is found, the article has fails WP:NALBUMS. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scarred for Life

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

~~Non-notable EP. Alex Douglas (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
No reliable sources found to verify notability. The source it references is a dead link, the other is liner notes. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 04:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find significant coverage for this EP in independent reliable sources; fails WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 18:09, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The album was released by a notable musician. "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." This album cites a newspaper, and the linear notes of the album. As stated, it was released by a notable artist, and all the info is correct, what more is need?--Gen. Quon (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, the use of the words "generally" and "may". Being an EP by a notable band, doesn't guarantee it as notable... What more is needed -- significant coverage for this EP in independent reliable sources, as per WP:NALBUMS. The liner notes are not independent sources. The newspaper article does not significantly cover the EP (from what I remember of it); the article is dead -- it no longer exists on the internet -- try and look for another link or for it in print. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, how many cites would make this "better"?--Gen. Quon (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a defined number, but its also to do with the 'quality' of the sources: they must be reliable secondary sources (that is, independent of the subject) that address the subject directly in detail. For example, a review by Rolling Stone of the album. Alex Douglas (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mail Songs No. 1

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

~~Non-notable EP. Alex Douglas (talk) 03:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]
No reliable sources found to verify notability. The band's official website is used twice, and other than that liner notes are referenced; primary sources. Alex Douglas (talk) 06:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 04:17, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find significant coverage for this EP in independent reliable sources; fails WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 18:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gangsta Grillz: The Album (Vol. 3)

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

Direct violation of WP:CRYSTAL STAT- Verse 02:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 03:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER apply; no confirmed track listing or release date at this time. Gongshow ^Talk 17:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NALBUMS (4th paragraph) which quotes WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. -M.Nelson (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I hate Don Cannon and DJ Drama. Need i say more? Str8cash (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Obviously, the canvassed votes were disregarded. However, those delete votes made (at least partly) in response to the canvassing were not helpful either; at best they included string of TLAs. The actual debate, therefore, ended up taking place between just a few people on each side. The key issue here is whether the sources are sufficient to show notability. It is obvious that each of the four sources offers covers the subject nontrivially; the question now is whether the sources themselves are significant enough. The consensus is that the UCSD Guardian articles alone do not show notability. WP:GNG makes no mention of whether sources need to be local, but WP:CORP does state that coverage cannot be solely local. In the end, it comes down to the other two non-local sources, and an agreement does not appear to have been reached on their status. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muir Skate Longboard Shop

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

~~Most of the coverage I'm finding for this company is either local and/or not independent of the subject. Contested prod.~~ See my proposal at the end of this discussion. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To the administrator reading this. The opinions of the "Keep" voters are organized at the bottom of the page because in this long debate, everyone's points were in fragments.

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This shop was on the UCSD campus for years and because of that, it is notable. PÆonU (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Read WP:CORP. Joe Chill (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - They were featured in an international magazine, Concrete Wave Magazine volume 6 issue 4, on page 31. At the time they were known as "Muir Surf and Skate".

[35] —Preceding unsigned comment added by PÆonU (talk • contribs) 21:17, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's one source, not multiple. Joe Chill (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- One international source and multiple local sources. It's notable as hell, and in addition, it's part of UCSD. Even though it's off-campus now, it was the one of the first board stores on a college campus. That is BIG. You have literally no idea how notable Muir Skate is. It's the biggest online longboarding store and has a huge presence on the campus. PÆonU (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - You literally have no idea how most editors consider local news as not showing notability. Joe Chill (talk) 22:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Here's my question. Why are there so many skate articles like this with just as many, and even less sources? And another question, since the store was on the UCSD campus for many years, wouldn't it be protected like the other UCSD articles? PÆonU (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If businesses on a campus are non-notable (none are protected unless they are notable), they could be merged to the college. I'm not sure if this could be merged since it's not on the campus anymore. I'm not tracking to attack your article or anything. Joe Chill (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I found some more sources.

Oct 2005: [36]

Oct 2007: [37]

Nov 2009: [38] PÆonU (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Joe Chill, when you say You literally have no idea how most editors consider local news as not showing notability., I'm curious. If you are looking for multiple coverage in something, because you believe in following the notability guideline, then why not consider local news sources as well? Is there somewhere in that suggested guideline that is against them? Dream Focus 13:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news search for their original name, Muir Surf & Sport, showed one result. [39] It gets coverage there. So that's another source found. Dream Focus 13:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dream Focus, I'm not going to get into a debate with an ultra inclusionist like you. It would be pointless. Joe Chill (talk) 20:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I feel the same way about talking to guys like you, who can't defend your position with logical statements. Dream Focus 20:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your inclusionism is illogical. So every thing with local news should have an article? That's stupid and is not why Wikipedia exists. Joe Chill (talk)
Rescue. This store is notable and is still part of the UCSD campus. It has international notability and has been in The Guardian multiple times. Therefor, I think this article deserves a chance to be worked on. PÆonU (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. PÆonU (talk) 09:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This might be hard for some to believe but I'm new at this sort of thing. I've been relisting and closing AFDs for a few years but until now, almost all my nominations have been of the hoaxy variety. Slam dunk deletes and I have no problem doing my best to get bullshit deleted. I don't like telling good faith editors who create pages on subjects that they care about that their submissions are not "good enough" for Wikipedia. In this case, I found the article doing new page patrol and it seemed like a cut and dry case of a company with little or no notability outside of the local area.
Such AFDs are quite common. A new editor creates an article about a local restaurant or something, it get's taken to AFD where everybody says "delete", quotes a bunch of WP:TLAs, parrots the common term "significant coverage in reliable sources", and insists that the coverage be "non local". Well, I went back and reviewed our notability guidelines and it does not mention anything about how geographically diverse the coverage has to be. A restaurant in a small town that's been a local institution for 50 years will likely have quite a bit of local press coverage which one might call "significant" so why not have an article on it? If we are to continue arguing in deletion debates that coverage needs to be widespread then that needs to be written into the guidelines. This is an issue I may bring up at the village pump.
My main concern with having a lot of articles about small local companies like this is that they vulnerable to some of the same risks as articles about marginally notable living people. Most will be on few watchlists. Let's say you have an article about a local restaurant and a dis-satisfied customer or a competitor adds in some unverified but credible sounding bull about them failing several health inspections or the premises being unsafe or in the case of a store, about the product being safe. This can actually harm the business in question. TL;DR "wall of text" over :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not just local, it has been featured in an international magazine. Even if it was purely local, the rules say nothing about local sources not being good enough. Your interpretation only limits the use of Wikipedia. An important part of this website is the ability to change things yourself. If a dissatisfied customer vandalizes the page, it will be caught fast. There are plenty of people checking recent edits for vandalism, so I wouldn't worry about that. PÆonU (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to something, Im not familiar with the area but if there is a category/article that includes stuff relating to campus culture it would make sense to have it there. This might be construed as a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument but almost all major universities have a bunch of peripheral businesses that are only notable because they are within walking distance of campus and everyone who has attended has been there, e.g. Harvard Book Store Grolier Poetry Bookshop.--Savonneux (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong delete nothing in gnews, the one hit that Dream Focus found makes a mockery of the significant coverage test as per WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you make a mockery of the system by attacking me(with a false accusation of something I clearly wasn't doing) in another AFD [40] and then six minutes later, your next edit of the day, is to post here insulting me directly. This isn't the type of article you normally participate in. How did you find it, if you weren't following me? You seem rather angry once again, had a fit, then followed me to another AFD I participated in, which you wouldn't have found or bothered with otherwise, and made a comment like that. Taken in context with your past behavior, this seems to be wikistalking. Dream Focus 21:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I laugh at your accusation of me having a fit or being so angry. None of which is true. I participate in a wide range of deletion discussions. and have partipated in an AfD on a very similar topic last month: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Orchard_Skate_Shop. suggest you WP:CHILL with paranoid accusations, none of which refutes my claims for deletion here. have a good day. LibStar (talk) 07:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no significant claims to or references for notability (as per WP:CORP) in the article. The references included and the only mentions I could find through Google searches are nothing more than trivial mentions. The article appears to exist solely as a soapbox. --Pump me up 15:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the international sources and newspaper articles? This is getting ridiculous. I mean, come on. Is there even any point in debating this out anymore if nobody is going to listen? I think I should stop wasting my time debating this out and give up on the article if nobody will listen to logic. PÆonU (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ (in spite of attempted canvassing by PÆonU) UCSD Guardian appears to be a reliable source, which when combined with the short, but not insignificant mention found by Dream Focus, appears to establish notability under WP:CORP. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not independent of the subject. It is a student newspaper for UCSD. Joe Chill (talk) 23:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Delete While I feel the the Guardian meets the requirement of being independent (as it is not a press vehicle for the store, or similar), while rereading WP:CORP I came across the line "attention solely from local media…is not an indication of notability", which means that for these purposes, while independent, the Guardian isn't an indication of notability, leaving only the short non-local mention; so barring any new developments I feel it fails the notability guidelines as written. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know "canvassing" even existed. Muir Skate was featured in an international magazine. Don't forget, they are not just a company, they are much like the Harvard bookstore. I bet 99% of the country has no idea of either stores' existence, but they're both part of the school's culture and are protected. With your delete vote, you're basically stating that articles like the Harvard Bookstore aren't worthy of an encyclopedia entry. Why not nominate that article for deletion too? PÆonU (talk) 05:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A few local and one international source is enough to meet WP:CORP 74.103.239.178 (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC) — 74.103.239.178 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note The above comment by 74.103.239.178 was copied verbatim from a list of comments posted on a forum here with instructions to copy and paste them to this page. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material."
When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.

Referring to 1., multiple local newspaper articles (The Guardian is a HUGE magazine) and an international source meets the requirements. WP:GNG states that this article needs "reliable sources." Reliable sources are any reputable magazines or newspapers, not just national and international ones. Your interpretation only causes unnecessary deletion. Some idiot tried to use this interpretation of reliable sources to try (and fail) to delete the page on Black Angus Steakhouse, which is gigantic in California. Until you get the rules changed, you can either search for and delete the thousands of articles with only local notability or leave them like they should be. The rules encourage more good articles, not less good articles.

Referring to 2., Muir Skate, being the first board store on a campus, has turned UCSD into one of, if not the best, skate schools. Thanks to Muir Skate, a huge population of students use longboards to travel around campus. While they were on the campus, they offered skate classes to students, so even non-customers with no prior experience could start skating. Because of this, I believe Muir Skate has affected the school's culture and athletics. UCSD has over 22,000 students, whereas Harvard has about 1,000 less students. Another point brought up by Savonneux is that the Harvard Book Store and Grolier Poetry Bookshop have articles. Since UCSD is a larger school, it should have articles about it's campus businesses too. PÆonU (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify my recommendation was to merge, my opinion is that since that most of its notability is derived from the school it should be included in the school or a school related article. It's not prejudicial, most small or even most non public companies don't meet WP:CORP unless they have done something remarkably unique (and even then most are only referenced in the aricles about the unique thing they have done.)--Savonneux (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muir Skate was the first board store on a continental U.S. college campus. I can't say the same about the Harvard bookstore. PÆonU (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has affected UCSD culture —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.101.74 (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC) — 72.220.101.74 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note The above comment by 72.220.101.74 was copied verbatim from a list of comments posted on a forum here with instructions to copy and paste them to this page. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has more sources than Harvard Book Store —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.245.247 (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC) — 24.214.245.247 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note The above comment by 24.214.245.247 was copied verbatim from a list of comments posted on a forum here with instructions to copy and paste them to this page. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete local notability only shown. Fails WP:N -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 02:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an international magazine they were featured in. [41] PÆonU (talk) 02:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I do not feel that the sources provided establish notability. They seem to be passing mentions or very local coverage. The relentless canvassing is distasteful as well. Reyk _YO! 07:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yeah, you're right. An interview with an international magazine is something any schmuck can get. Sadly, the Transworld Business link is not the full article, but it's definitely not a quick mentioning. Don't forget, when a new shoe store, skate store, or card store opens, it isn't announced by a national publication. Something has to be notable to even get a single sentence about them in a national or international publication. PÆonU (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin there have been 3 not so random single purpose editors "voting" here not to mention potential canvassing. LibStar (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've opened a report at ANI regarding the "potential" canvassing. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Potential" is being extremely cautious. This is the most extreme and blatant example of canvassing and attempting to stir up personal attacks that I have ever seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I read the article in Concrete Wave, which has been referred to throughout this AfD discussion as an "international magazine" - at a guess, "international" is intended to mean "outside the US" as Concrete Wave is published in Canada, but that's just my guess - in any case it's not a local publication. The same applies to the Transworld Business site which mentioned the store in 2006. These two articles are, however, not enough to show that the company meets WP:CORP to my mind - they do not constitute significant coverage in multiple independent publications. All the misbehaviour and canvassing don't exactly help the article's case, but even if it hadn't happened I don't see how the article could be saved. (Yes, I have searched for additional sources.) --bonadea contributions talk 16:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:CORP. The coverage I'm seeing is not very significant. "Concrete Wave"? Yeah, so? Notabilty just because it was on a campus? I'm sure there is a maintainence shed near the athletic fields too, but I doubt it's notable either....Niteshift36 (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails corp, no extensive coverage from reliable sources. The canvassing was just plain stupid. --Terrillja _talk 20:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Libstar. If the phases "significant coverage" and "non-trivial" mean anything at all, then surely this fails WP:N, or WP:CORP Yilloslime ^T_C 01:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how the coverage is trivial? It may not be significant but a Q&A with a skate magazine and one of the two UCSD Guardian write-ups is detailed.Cptnono (talk) 03:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

disruptive editor's attempt to co-opt this discussion compressed

Compromise

This is the classic deletionist vs. inclusionist vs. middle ground debate. Everything that can be said about the article has already been repeated by all sides and there's no point in continuing the debate. To the administrator who decides the fate of this article, if you're leaning towards the deletionists' side, at least merge it here. Muir Skate was the first campus board store in the continental U.S., has multiple local sources and an international source (not even the Harvard Book Store has that), and has had an effect on the culture of a campus with over 20,000 people. If that's not notable enough for an article, it at least deserves a merge. PÆonU (talk) 02:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second this proposition. Those who know the longboarding community understand that this store carries quite a good deal of significance. Furthermore, it is not limited to obscurity as a local shop, because it has also become a popular online retailer of longboarding goods and is well-known throughout the longboarding community in the United States. Moogleluvr (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Offsite canvassing. I just found this (google cache). Therefore, I have added the "notaballot" tag to this discussion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Made the mistake of actually clicking that link, Ron, and some of my optimism for the future of the human race has died. I'm sure you're huddled in a corner in the fetal position, trembling and sobbing, because some of those mental giants have figured out how to copy and paste the words "Ron Ritzman is a douche" five hundred times. Who could have foreseen that brilliant stratagem? Reyk _YO! 08:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: *sigh* --Savonneux (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can say that Ron Ritzman is such a Douche Ron Ritzman is such a Douche Ron Ritzman is such a Douche... comment is in poor taste, but the rest of the thread is great and illustrates a beautiful point. I think all Wikipedia editors from both the inclusionist and deletionist side should read that thread. PÆonU (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is not standard practice to have this long ranging discussion, your continual deep desperation to keep this article is obvious. not to mention potential canvassing and possible conflict of interest. LibStar (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The goal was to end the discussion. It will make the administrator's decision much simpler if both sides summarize their view. My goal is to make the section below an easy-to-read section instead of this jumbled up mess above my post. I do not have a conflict of interest. I've tried to save articles before, but rarely find one that is being deleted for no reason. I don't have a deep desperation either, I have the principles that you're missing. I'm not going to let people get away with giving a good article the axe. It goes against the very reason Wikipedia was created. PÆonU (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

most of the excessive text comes from you. suggest you cease with this desperation. LibStar (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

asking people to restate their arguments is ridiculous. cease with this trying to force the issue here. LibStar (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this right. Option A: the administrator reads all the clutter above or option B: the administrator reads an argument-free summary. Is A that much better? I'm not asking for you to write a manifesto, this is just an efficient method of doing an AfD. PÆonU (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is NOT standard practice, knowing you, you will just rebut everything again. many people post their arguments and do not revisit an AfD page. your request is unreasonable and not standard practice. I suggest you cease immediately. LibStar (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Do as I say, not as I do," eh? Love it.

Actually, I wouldn't. Now that I think about it, this cannot become the standard halfway through the debate. It was a mistake to try that. However, I'm keeping my summary, which contained some of the stuff above and new things that prove that it should be kept. Have you even read it?

Summary

Due to the lack of structure in this debate, I would like to put the "keep" voters' ideas, plus additional evidence in one summary. I'd prefer it if any attacks on it be done in a new section below the summary, because the goal of this is that with this summary, I am completely done with the debate and do not need to return to the page until a decision is made. Literally nobody here will change their mind, so more debating is useless. The text in quotes comes directly from WP:CORP.

"When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."

Muir Skate has had a significant effect on the culture of UCSD, a college with at least 20,000 students. The store's skate lessons increased the number of skateboarders in the college, making skateboarding culture more popular than ever. The events it hosted on campus, one of which introduced the store to a writer for Concrete Wave, have not stopped since they left the campus. They are close enough to the campus to host UCSD skate events like the giant Gravity Slidefest, so they are still very much affecting UCSD culture. [42]

"Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability."

Muir Skate has been featured three times in the UCSD Guardian and the owner of the store was interviewed by international magazine Concrete Wave (volume 6 issue 4, page 31). Additional media attention comes from Transworld Business, which is a national magazine owned by the Bonnier Corporation, a large American publisher. Unfortunately, the entire article is not available, but the beginning of it is free to read. [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] Although the Guardian is a local publication, Transworld Business is a national publication and Concrete Wave is an international publication. Upon reviewing the links provided, it becomes fairly obvious that Muir Skate receives "attention from international or national, or at least regional, media," and does not receive "attention solely from local media or media of limited interest and circulation."

"If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."

All three UCSD Guardian articles and the interview in Concrete Wave meet this requirement. Although the article in Transworld Business is not available as a whole, from the looks of the text available and the fact that it was published a year after the store's opening, it was most likely not a short mention.

Although this article is still in it's infancy, it is well sourced and meets WP:CORP. Therefor, this article should not be deleted or merged. PÆonU (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite attempts by PÆonU and the editors who have responded to his canvassing, they have not managed to show significant evidence of notability. Instead they have come up with arguments which do not relate to Wikipedia policy, such as "This shop was on the UCSD campus for years and because of that, it is notable", and "Has affected UCSD culture", including appeals to "other stuff exists", such as "It has more sources than Harvard Book Store", and "Why are there so many skate articles like this with just as many, and even less sources". PÆonU and DreamFocus have tried to make much of coverage in the UCSD Guardian, but coverage in a student newspaper within one university is a very limited form of coverage, and it is also debatable whether it can be regarded as an independent source. "Local (originally on-campus) shop gets coverage in student on-campus newspaper" does not establish notability. I could go on further to discuss more details of what has been said, but it would not alter the overall point, which is that, despite a very concerted effort, those arguing for "keep" have failed to produce evidence of the sort of substantial coverage required by the notability criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough seems to exist right now to demonstrate notability. Maybe they'll get some press in the next year or two and can try again then. But next time, don't try to game the system. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 22:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/leaning keep Editors appear to be misreading the ~~General Notability Guidelines and the~~(edit: oops it is in WP:CORP mot GNG) Corporate specific one. Local coverage can still be significant coverage. "Solely" is the key word so please don't disregard local sources. And why is Transworld Business being disregarded? Transworld Skateboarding is certainly a big name and their business publication should have a decent reputation. A write up(note that only part of it is shown here) by one of their editors establishes some notability. And Concrete Wave Magazine does not need to be the Wall Street Journal to be RS. That Q&A can certainly improve the article and it is not local or even regional. It is also not a trivial mention even if it isn't a multi-page story. Canvassing is frustrating but that should not impact if the business is notable according to GNG or CORP.Cptnono Cptnono (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, I was thinking the same thing after the first 2 !votes in this discussion. (before the whole thing blew up) The GNG doesn't say anything about the coverage needing to be non local (but WP:CORP does). With a little leaning I could probably make a pretty good case for keeping this article. In an ideal wiki world, that's how AFD would work. That is, editors, some with different interpretations of the guidelines, discussing how they should be applied to a particular article. Instead, AFDs become battlegrounds between those dead set on "getting the cruft off wikipedia" and those who think the world's going to end if some website doesn't have an article on their favorite subject. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. A couple more stories from San Diego or something in Thrasher would make it more clear cut for me. As is I see the potential but am not completely on board. And I totally understand some frustration based on the canvasing and the owners or fans potentially using this as some sort of sign of pride.Cptnono (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be relying on your own interpretation of the guidelines (as do we all), I see no emphasis placed on "solely" or other indication that it is indeed "the key word". This brings us back to the point of AfDs (among other things): determining consensus on the appropriate interpretation of notability guidelines. VernoWhitney (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that an article from Thrasher would certainly give a skateboarding-related article credibility, you have to keep in mind that the longboarding community gets much less coverage than the trick-skateboard community. The Concrete Wave is to longboarding what Thrasher, Transworld, and Skateboarding Magazine are to trick-skateboarding. Moogleluvr (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear It isn't that Concrete Wave is not reputable. In fact, it is why I lean keep. A couple more magazine stories (it doesn't even need to be at the same level as Concrete Wave) is needed to establish that there is a good amount of coverage on the subject.Cptnono (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to take it to the Village Pump or to the guideline's talk page if you want to argue that local media coverage can not be considered. Yes, I am emphasizing "solely" since people are disregarding it. "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." doesn't mean disregard local media. It could be argued that since it is only skate magazines that the audience is limited but that needs to be considered separate from any assertion that local media cannot assert at least some notability. Two sources are not local or even regional (one is in Canada?) and have at least a national reach (I believe Transworld is distributed throughout the world). So they need to be considered along with the local media. It still may not be enough coverage but I feel it is close.Cptnono (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [48] Mentions that they sponsor the surf club at UCSD (I tried searching for owner's name instead of the shop name). Still feel it doesnt meet WP:CORP though.--Savonneux (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CORP, WP:N, WP:V. And frankly, the canvassing attempts noted above don't exactly do the article any favours, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Completely fails WP:CORP. The canvassing attempts make my position more firm. Calling deletionists "douches" doesn't help your case one bit. (Note that PÆonU (talk · contribs) is blocked.) —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 04:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The canvassing atttempts should not affect your position at all. You either believe it meets the requirements or it does not, you don't say delete because you don't like one person who is involved in this. Dream Focus 04:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There does appear to be some knee-jerk "voting" to the canvasing. It makes sense that some think the subject fails the requirements but I hope editors can focus on that and not the shenanigans.Cptnono (talk) 04:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I mentioned in ANI that a good way to get an article deleted is to canvas for keeps. Are some of these new "delete" !votes a knee jerk reaction to the canvassing, probably. They probably didn't know this article and its AFD existed until it was bought up on ANI. How would any of them have !voted if they ran across it by other means, who knows. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the irony is that PÆonU has in fact drawn more attention to this AfD that he hoped for. LibStar (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The text below has been copy-pasted from PÆonU's userpage. I have been following this discussion and noticed the deletion of these points from the discussion, which I feel is a very underhanded and dishonest act on the part of those rallying for the deletion of this page. I believe that both sides should have the opportunity to have all of their points presented on level grounds for this to constitute a true discussion, and therefore, I have copy-pasted the text below from PÆonU's userpage. While I can understand the frustration both sides are experiencing in this debate, keep in mind Wikipedia was founded upon trust in the community to do the right thing, and playing dirty by deleting the other side's points is entirely uncalled for. Thank you for your consideration. Moogleluvr (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

"When evaluating the notability of organizations, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education."

Muir Skate has had a significant effect on the culture of UCSD, a college with at least 20,000 students. The store's skate lessons increased the number of skateboarders in the college, making skateboarding culture more popular than ever. The events it hosted on campus, one of which introduced the store to a writer for Concrete Wave, have not stopped since they left the campus. They are close enough to the campus to host UCSD skate events like the giant Gravity Slidefest, so they are still very much affecting UCSD culture. [49]

"Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability."

Muir Skate has been featured three times in the UCSD Guardian and the owner of the store was interviewed by international magazine Concrete Wave (volume 6 issue 4, page 31). Additional media attention comes from Transworld Business, which is a national magazine owned by the Bonnier Corporation, a large American publisher. Unfortunately, the entire article is not available, but the beginning of it is free to read. [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] Although the Guardian is a local publication, Transworld Business is a national publication and Concrete Wave is an international publication. Upon reviewing the links provided, it becomes fairly obvious that Muir Skate receives "attention from international or national, or at least regional, media," and does not receive "attention solely from local media or media of limited interest and circulation."

"If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."

All three UCSD Guardian articles and the interview in Concrete Wave meet this requirement. Although the article in Transworld Business is not available as a whole, from the looks of the text available and the fact that it was published a year after the store's opening, it was most likely not a short mention. "

Comment after 1 edit in 2 years Moogleluvr (talk · contribs) returns soley to edit this AfD. certainly a form of single purpose editing in my book. LibStar (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the IPs didn't present the best reasoning. If one of them came back and actually referred to guidelines it might be better to address that over the editor. You can always drag the editor to a noticeboard somewhere but I don't think there is any doubt that there was some poor form on this one. So any response to his assertions or was it already covered and I missed it?Cptnono (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editors did not give any reasoning at all. They simply responded to a call on a forum to copy and paste "votes" to this discussion. There is no reason to suppose that they had any understanding of the issues at all. Of course they may have, but we cannot reasonably argue on the basis of speculation as to what they might have said under different circumstances. This issue has to be decided on the basis of what arguments have been put forward, and on that basis the arguments put forward by those editors would be of very little value, even apart from their copy-paste canvassed background. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That comment sucks. You essentially just disregarded any comments made by not gaming editors since they said the same thing.[55] Can you respond to this? I get that the IP behavior sucks but it would be appreciated if you could respond or point to timestamps where you have already done so.Cptnono (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Moogleluvr (talk · contribs) that text was already collapsed into the box right above this. There were barely any comments on this article until it turned into a drama fest. The worst that was going to happen was a no prejudice delete or a merge, now all the relevant pages are going to be on multiple watchlists and possibly semi-protected. Is pasting redundant text / breaking format really going to help? --Savonneux (talk) 08:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Moogleluvr could perhaps have assumed a little more good faith. I do not think that the collapsing of the relevant section was "a very underhanded and dishonest act": it was done quite openly, not underhandedly, and I see nothing to indicate that it was dishonest. There have been genuine concerns that there was an "attempt to co-opt this discussion", and an honest attempt to deal with that attempt. If Moogleluvr had said "I think that attempt was mistaken" then that would be one thing, but "underhanded and dishonest" is another. Also it is, of course, inaccurate to describe the collapsing of part of the discussion as "deletion". JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cptnono says that editors appear to be misreading the guidelines, and I think quite a few other comments above are based on the same view. I don't think this is particularly so. It is possible to pick out various bits and pieces of coverage, and to say that while most of it has been local there has also been some non-local coverage, so we can check off particular points listed in guidelines. However, I do not think this is a good approach. The guidelines are guidelines, not check lists. The overall spirit of the guidelines is that there should have been substantial coverage, not just fragmentary coverage. The most substantial coverage is not just local, as for example in a local town newspaper, but provincial, in a student campus newspaper. The other coverage is mostly fragmentary, and overall it is not possible to say that this business has received substantial attention. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. We totally agree on somethings and not others but not as I would have expected. Completely agree that the coverage could be read as not substantial. I also agree that a college paper is not the best to rely on for notability. However, the coverage in sources with a national or international reach are not fragmentary. We could right an article about it off those easily. I don't know if those two big magazines is enough though. There is also the question of if they were solicited which opens up another can of worms. This article to me is literally one story in a paper or magazine away from being a slam dunk. I'm not positive as it is though. It is much closer than editors reacting to some completely lame gaming of the system would have a casual reader of the conversation believe. Cptnono (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I accept that it is closer than some comments, including perhaps some of mine, might make it look. However, I still think it is not enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal. As the "douche" who started this mess, I would like to suggest that this AFD be closed and the article moved out of mainspace to the incubator. A few editors have suggested that it might be possible to demonstrate notability so let's give them their shot. After a reasonable amount of time, let's say 7 days after PÆonU's block expires. The article can be moved back into mainspace and a new AFD started. Hopefully one free of drama. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

disagree, there is sufficient arguments to let these AfD run its course. LibStar (talk) 23:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Fails WP:CORP despite the addition of a couple of obscure references. Toddst1 (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Energy Design Guide for Metal Building Systems

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

A non-notable article that borderlines on advertising. Wizard191 (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Spam. Tzu Zha Men (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Snehanshu

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

Non-notable book; "sources" consist of a piece in his school paper and a newspaper listing of it as a "light read". Orange Mike | Talk 00:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Despite his efforts, Harshsnehanshu has failed to provide other reliable sources. Racconish^Tk 05:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesnt meet WP:AUTHOR. He is not yet there.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The freeze game

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

Non-notable game nonsense. ttonyb (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up at school one day. No references or sources whatsoever. Nothing to indicate it wasn't only invented when the author created the article. JIP | Talk 03:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems to be consistent with the regular vandalizing of the Ida Crown Jewish Academy article. Mandsford (talk) 20:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:MADEUP -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete per all of the above. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 20:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeeppradhan

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

Creator repeatedly removes speedy deletion tags. Not notable. GregJackP (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete? Going to Google News, I get 0 hits for both "Sanjeep Pradhan" and "Sanjeeppradhan". David V Houston (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, dubious notability and some bizarre resume content; looks like an autobiography Hairhorn (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G. Richard Chamberlin

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

This person is not notable. Article without any references or sources. Kolja21 (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The redirect Richard Chamberlin (applied by the same author, User:Ikkibu) is misleading. Richard Chamberlin is a well known actor.[56] --Kolja21 (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the article's claims are true, he meets WP:POLITICIAN as an elected state-level politician. I think the claims are verifiable: [57] [58]. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepHe seems to be notable enough although the article needs to be rewritten by someone who understands WP policies. Kitfoxxe (talk) 07:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite and source it. Clearly meets WP:POLITICIAN. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 6 May 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) 00:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claudia Costa

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:PORNBIO - Cyber Girls of the Week and Playboy Mexico's Playmate of the Month are non-notable pornographic awards. Also has not made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre. Imrie (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As stated 4 months ago, porn stars do not all get into Playboy (any version). Playboy playmates do not all do Porn films. Confusingly, PORNBIO states it is set to address "Pornographic actors and models"... but all its sub-sets only apply toward persons involved in porn films... and do not actually address individuals who are not. So the problem in using this section of BIO for this individual is seen in that even with inclusion of the word "model" in its header, the section only addresses notability of persons involved in the making of porn films. Use of this particular guideline and its various sub-sets become inapplicable to BLPs of persons NOT actually involved in porn films. It's like using a thermometer to measure gravity... the measuring device being used is just not correct for the task at hand. Heck... we might as well state that she fails WP:ATH as well. Editors might perhaps look toward more applicable guidelines... and in this case we might better consider WP:GNG for determining if someone is worthy of note. Time to look for Spanish sources about this person. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete? Following the news link, I see only 1 reference to her in the first four pages, and that's hosting a Lapdance on 'Stripperween'. Doesn't look notable to me David V Houston (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ENT, no indication that the subject can satisfy the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:47, 4 May 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) 00:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Midmac

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

Non-notable bidding system; fails WP:GNG - at least one source (the Haarlem book) is self-published. ukexpat (talk) 03:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The most recent book was published by lulu.com, but the other one was published by Batsford (see Anova Books), so not self-pub, and it appears that's a fairly reputable publisher for books of this kind. Jon Drabble's book was reviewed in The Bridge World. Pcap ping 05:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. Relisting at the request of the nominator. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is just a how to manual for this bidding process. The two current references are both primary sources and do not establish notability. One review of one of the books that created this system is not enough to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N insufficient 3rd party coverage to pass. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:26, 4 May 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.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevie Starr}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Brewton}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levis poker}}