Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 2: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
__TOC__ |
__TOC__ |
||
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> |
<!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list --> |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neal Caffrey}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neal Caffrey}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognizable offense}} |
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cognizable offense}} |
Revision as of 02:38, 2 January 2010
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of White Collar characters. Owen× ☎ 19:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Neal Caffrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG non notable TV character Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The article is in quite bad shape at the moment but just from a quick google search I found these - [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5], and many more which altogether counts towards GNG. I have never watched the show but it seems obvious that the character is notable due to his popularity just in the first few pages of Google search, and that is excluding sources in the archives. I also found several essays on the character (e.g. [6] and [7]), and whilst they are not able to be used in the article, it does show the character's importance. If the page is not kept I would recommend Draftifying and merging to List of White Collar characters. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of White Collar characters - While there are plenty of sources mentioning the character, not a whole lot of them really have much to say about the character themself that would really justify a split out article. Many of the ones linked to above, and that I found in my own searches, are either general reviews/overviews of the series that talk about him in the overall discussion of the show, or just plot recaps. Essentially, I am not seeing much that would be able to really build an article that would not either be duplicative of the overall coverage of the show already found in the main series article or character list, or overly detailed plot summaries like what the article is currently like. As the character does not seem to have any notability or coverage outside of being the main character of a notable show, per WP:NOPAGE, it would be best to cover the character as part of the overall discussion of the show rather than as a separate article. Rorshacma (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Rorshacma. The character can be covered in the list, per WP:ATD. If someone wanted to expand the WP:PLOT summary at the main White Collar article, that's how we usually cover the in-universe events around a fictional protagonist. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep and move to cognizable offence. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cognizable offense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources; not notable; Wikipedia is not a dictionary Dr.enh (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. To start with, this isn't a U.S. legal term at all
(nor is "cognizable offense," as we would spell it), and to the extent it appears in cases it just means "recognized offense (under some statute)," and has nothing to do with when the police may arrest a person. I've therefore removed all the reference to U.S. law. On the other hand, this does seem to be a meaningful concept in Indian, and maybe Pakistani, law, as the search here indicates. Since I really don't know anything about Indian or Pakistani law I'll leave it to others to judge the merits of the sources, but to the extent this is a legal concept it seems at least marginally notable and is not a dictionary definition. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC) UPDATE Duh, the article spells it the American way. FWIW, I think the Indian sources have, as one might expect, "offence."[reply] - Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tentative delete. At the moment, this is really a dictionary entry, though I could be persuaded otherwise if someone cites to something Indian that shows that there's real legal controversy or dispute over whether something is cognizable, and thus something encyclopedic about the term. THF (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: It is encyclopedic. Here is an official source [8]. There are a number of controversies about what is a cognizable offense and its implementation the latest one being Ruchika Girhotra Case[9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]
- Keep. In my view this is a notable legal concept as opposed to a mere dictionary definition. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but move to cognizable offence, the spelling in Indian English. Notability is not an issue as shown by the sources listed above, and others available on Google Books. An encyclopedic article can clearly be written on this legal subject, although it would take a motivated editor with knowledge of Indian law to do so. Abecedare (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The provision of sources above convinces me that it has been the source of much discussion. Also note the distinction between a concept and a definition, and please for God's sake move it to its proper title. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:20, 9 January 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}} . |
- Company of Heroes: Eastern Front (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article does not assert any significance of the subject. No coverage in sources independent of the subject is cited in the article, and I have not been able to find any with a web search. Article was initially prodded but was de-prodded by 81.152.130.152 (diff) on the basis that the article cites the subject's official website. Cynical (talk) 02:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An article about a fan-designed mod—upcoming, no less—just cries out for deletion. Looking around with an open mind, I can see that this is more legit than somebody's random Doom WAD, but it is just not notable and has no sources other than its own website and a handful of forum posts. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this video game mod. Joe Chill (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete:Has no coverage.--SkyWalker (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I couldn't find anything else here besides forums and message boards for this. –MuZemike 17:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Although I've contributed to this article, I'm disappointed that there are no other good sources for this, despite googling it many times. If more RSs come up after this is released, I hope this could be DRV'd. --Eaglestorm (talk) 01:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would support that in the event there were significant coverage in independent reliable sources upon release, definitely. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Please keep. Thank you. Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.54.233 (talk) 07:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC) — 24.130.54.233 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete - sounds interesting but it does not appear to satisfy our notability guidelines to merit inclusion, due to a lack of significant coverage by reliable third parties. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait and See - Release date is in less than two weeks. The official Relic Community Website website has it on their front page.
http://community.companyofheroesgame.com/ SaintDaveUK (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was revert to redirect with speedy deletion as G4 for insurance against recreation. Thus the article has been deleted, and a new redirect created on the title. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jason Derülo (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No citations to prove this album exists. It is very likely that the release date, tracklist, and title are all made up. Chase wc91 02:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as recreation of article previously removed (consensus: 'redirect to artist name') at AFD Cynical (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's a recreation, what article is it a recreation of? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See the previous AfD discussion (the link is provided at the top of this page too). --DAJF (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's a recreation, what article is it a recreation of? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete as recreation of article previously deleted following AfD discussion. --DAJF (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a recreation PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 04:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Actually, revert back to the redirect that it was before. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 04:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 01:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarah Brinklow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable poet; no major coverage or recognition Wandering Courier (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 4 google news hits no comment beyond this. Ikip 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The sources in the Google News Archive search are insufficient to establish notability. Three of them from westsidenewsonline.com are about the same topic:
“ | Local author, Sarah Brinklow, is looking for old photographs that might be used in "Images of America: Around Kendall, Morton and Troutburg," a pictorial history to be published by Arcadia Publishing. | ” |
- Delete, not a notable poet. Her book was self-published through a vanity publisher. As for the anthologies, I can't find any evidence that Women Celebrating Women exists at all except maybe as an annual Rochester, NY get-together; and she had one poem in Knocking on the Silence, published by a tiny outfit founded "for the purpose of getting into print the words of poets who found it hard to get their work out to the public other than at readings or in the occasional magazine," which doesn't list her on its poets list. I can't find any significant coverage of this poet. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Her publications credits aren't notable Vartanza (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - does not appear to satisfy WP:CREATIVE due to a lack of significant coverage. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 01:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sun Blast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable PC software. MisterWiki talk contribs 01:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nom. --MisterWiki talk contribs 01:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; I have found some sources, but none of them pass WP:GNG; most are releases on free download sites and the like. Ironholds (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, it is a random game from a small company (currently a red link). Only sources I can find is the press release and then download sites (and their web page). Judging from the video on their site, I wouldn't expect this game to get any real coverage, it is just like a billion other casual games. --Narson ~ Talk • 01:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or rewrite as it reads like an advertisement. There may be notability if the claim that the game is the first computer game to offer Wiimote compatibility is true. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is believed to be the first PC/MAC game designed for Wiimote - could not find any other reference (on google.com) about such a game. I will rewrite the article, to get it into a less "advertisement" shape - my son was probably too enthusiastic when he wrote it. Lauraserbu 11:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a keep or delete? --MW talk contribs 16:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's an I'm not sure. Remember that Wikipedia is not a majority vote. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 18:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a keep or delete? --MW talk contribs 16:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this video game. Joe Chill (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Nothing I could find besides the same press release or in-passing mentions. –MuZemike 17:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not meet WP:RS. Warrah (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - subject appears to lack significant, third party, reliable sources to merit inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete . NW (Talk) 21:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- IncaGold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Whilst they exist and they have published some games - I can't find anything that would establish their notability. RandomTime 23:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I've just checked, and the author of this article is named Incagold richard - which is almost certenly a Conflict of Interest RandomTime 23:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I found an entry on Google Finance for the stock LON:IGD. If a company was ever publicly traded it should be notable enough for Wikipedia. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And more coverage from Reuters from IGDE.L. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note WP:LISTED says that notability is not automatic in the case of public trading RandomTime 23:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless notability can be better established and it can be re-written in a less self-promotional manner. Eeekster (talk) 23:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Sources found do not establish notability. --Teancum (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep With all the games they've published, and a stock ticker, I find it is notable enough for an article–still an article that needs some help. matthewpaulster (talk) 03:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:LISTED as already mentioned above; only news web hit is a press release. No search hits at industry magazines like Edge. Marasmusine (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have expanded and tidied the list of games based on research - and put it in alphabetical order. A number of these games of IncaGold I have found in Nestlé cereal boxes - that means millions of units are out there per game worldwide. The company is a good example of hard to find company that has a niche market. todosjogos (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC) — todosjogos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Keep AIM Admission Document is verified information. The company's product names bring up more hits than the company itself, but as these are games for the mass-market, I the brand name wouldn't. highscorejunky 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC) — highscorejunky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Delete Regardless of turnover I can find no information which suggests this company is any more suitable for a WP article than countless faceless budget outfits, there is no coverage of them. The vast majority of the titles the company has released appear to be the kind of budget games which receive no press, don't get sold in any major stores, and eventually end up on car boot sale stalls stacked high for 99p a pop (and still not selling). Without secondary sources we revert to looking at necessity due to importance etc., sorry but I'm really not seeing a case for this. Someoneanother 22:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I see no significant coverage whatsoever (Google offers only press releases) and thus cannot verify notability. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin – Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Incagold richard:
- User:Highscorejunky, User:Todosjogos, and User:Genevoise1291 are Confirmed to be the same person.
- User:Incagold richard is Likely to the same as the above.
–MuZemike 09:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only coverage that exists out there is from press releases and the like. When actual non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications is available we can create an article then. JBsupreme (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Sandstein 06:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Nostalgia Chick episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
List of web clips from somebody who isn't notable. no sources, no claims of notability, no list item is notable. Jac16888Talk 21:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I'll add what I can to the article in the near future (although I'm on holiday and don't have a lot of time right now). Lindsay Ellis, the Nostalgia Chick, is an internet celebrity with a popular series and is therefore notable. Googling for Nostalgia Chick, Lindsay Ellis or even Nostalgia Chick Lindsay Ellis should confirm that. It seems reasonable to me to have a list of episodes on Wikipedia. (Also, it should be pointed out that this is a list of episodes, with a defined beginning and end; the term "web clips" could be read as a loaded term in implying incompleteness on inconsequentialty.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The creator of the series doesn't even have an article, if she's so notable then perhaps an article should be created for her or for the show itself before we even think of having a list of episodes. As for your google links, they don't suggest any notability in the slightest, the top 3 hits are facebook, myspace and Twitter - not a good sign, and most of the rest are blogs, forums and reposts of the video themselves.--Jac16888Talk 17:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, I think we should have a Nostalgia Chick page which includes a list of episodes, the list of episodes shouldn't have a stand-alone article in my opinion. I dunno if there are any wikipedia rules about lists having stand-alone articles or such, that's just my opinion.
HaiyaTheWin IS The Win! 17:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I've modified the article a little so it has more information and some references. I don't don't think it can be moved during the AfD but, assuming it's kept, it could simply beome "Nostalgia Chick" instead of a stand alone list. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which would be fine, were the list of episodes either removed, or stubbed massively, since the content is basically junk--Jac16888Talk 20:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS. There may be cause for an article on this person, but not for a list of their youtube videos. (Note: please do not interpret this vote as an invitation to create an article on this person). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, the series would seem to fail WP:WEB, so it follows that a list of its episodes would also fail the notability criteria. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ciaran Gultnieks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find enough coverage for this software developer to put him over the notability threshold despite a pretty long search. Would have tagged for speedy, but since the subject is a Wikipedian himself thought it better to bring for discussion Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although Ciaran is not currently as active as he was, back in the day he was a significant figure in the industry. I believe that deletion would be another example of Wikipedia's unfortunate tendency towards recentism. Ringbark (talk) 23:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But, it doesn't look like he received any significant coverage in the past, either. The best I can find is the quick mention in CRASH issue 64. Are you able to find anything to show that he was a significant figure, back in the day? Marasmusine (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not game to follow the "there are lots of articles about less important people" as this isn't what this discussion is about. The problem is that most of the articles about him were in dead tree magazines that haven't made it to the online world. Nevertheless, the thought that he was no less important than lots of people who do feature here is one I can't shake. Also, where would people go if they wanted a quick biographical summary about the subject? The OP concedes that he can find *some* coverage. The only question is whether it's enough to say he's notable. I say yes - evidently there is dispute on this point. Ringbark (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Offline sources are fine, provided they are still non-trivial mentions in reliable sources. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not game to follow the "there are lots of articles about less important people" as this isn't what this discussion is about. The problem is that most of the articles about him were in dead tree magazines that haven't made it to the online world. Nevertheless, the thought that he was no less important than lots of people who do feature here is one I can't shake. Also, where would people go if they wanted a quick biographical summary about the subject? The OP concedes that he can find *some* coverage. The only question is whether it's enough to say he's notable. I say yes - evidently there is dispute on this point. Ringbark (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Delete simply as a WP:BLP without much of anything supporting it. Nifboy (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to The Software Refinery which is a company that he had a hand in founding. -- Whpq (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep disagree with merge - not just a founder of that company but also leed developer of many well known games from vector grafix, microprose, activision, domark like star wars for example. Also as a hardwar fan I remember many interviews etc at that time which must count as not-trivial 82.42.5.114 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC). — 82.42.5.114 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- If you could find some of those interviews....Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Slipstream 5000 was the subject of a major article in PC Format, which also focussed on the people in the company including Ciaran.
- If you could find some of those interviews....Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As per WP:CREATIVE I would say he qualifies as a creative professional under this: The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work...that has been the subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Ringbark (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also: The original article at Wikipedia lists four computer games he worked on which are notable enough to have articles of their own. Ringbark (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- NNTPGrab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Can't find anything beyond catalog entries and some security vulnerabilities. Pcap ping 07:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find significant coverage of this software. Jujutacular T · C 19:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ernest Morrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Lacks notability. Probably written by his wife. username 1 (talk) 18:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. Only marginal WP:Prof #1 as GS cites give h index around 10. Others may care to argue WP:Politician. Who wrote this recent article is irrelevant. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – I’m showing that his article in the Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy is cited 73 times. Likewise “Promoting Academic” in the English Journal is cited 53 times and they are just two of numerous references in Google Scholar, as provided here [15]. Wouldn’t this qualify the Doctor under Creative Professional? Happy New Year. JAAGTalk 01:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Just-An-Average-Guy (talk • contribs) 01:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not by the standards that prevail on these pages. Many hundreds of cites are usually required to show notability above that of the average professor. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I’m showing his works cited in excess of 400 times, with the link I provided above. In adition, he is credited as part of “.. An incredible team of IDEA scholars—including Susan Auer- bach, Tony Collat0s, Makeba Jones, Martin Lipton, Ernest Morrell, Irene Serna, Marisa Saunders, and Susan Yonezawa—invested both their minds and hearts in this work” which is cited 2,220 times as shown here [16]. Does this help? Thanks for help. JAAGTalk 02:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. 400 cites makes him marginal by the usual standards of WP:Prof #1. The 2,220 cites refer to somebody else's book. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- I’m showing his works cited in excess of 400 times, with the link I provided above. In adition, he is credited as part of “.. An incredible team of IDEA scholars—including Susan Auer- bach, Tony Collat0s, Makeba Jones, Martin Lipton, Ernest Morrell, Irene Serna, Marisa Saunders, and Susan Yonezawa—invested both their minds and hearts in this work” which is cited 2,220 times as shown here [16]. Does this help? Thanks for help. JAAGTalk 02:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not by the standards that prevail on these pages. Many hundreds of cites are usually required to show notability above that of the average professor. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep. I added some references and reviews of his books. His work has also been mentioned in fairly large daily newspapers. I think he passes WP:GNG - Eastmain (talk) 02:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it's well referenced, which usually means it meets the notability standards. The personal section in the article needs to be merged elsewhere. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A Tribute to the Creatures of the Night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 18:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not finding any coverage; does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow Talk 19:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find significant coverage of the album. Jujutacular T · C 19:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to Network switch. Jayjg (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Manageable and Unmanageable switches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not enough content and no sources. Another editor proposed a merge, but did not indicate whereto. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Network switch, where there's a subheading that could be expanded. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 18:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A merge would be a suitable outcome for me as well, if feasible. Debresser (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, after finding sources. Chris the speller (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No point in merging—this does not seem to be a likely search term (but manageable switch might be so). All of the information here is covered in network switch, and managed switch already redirects to network switch. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Network switch per above : this article on its own contributes little to the subject. --Oscarthecat (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Manageable and Unmanageable switches" appears to be a viable search term as it turns up several results on Google. SilkTork *YES! 11:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. no consensus for deletion JForget 02:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- SALT (quartet) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The indications of notability in the article aren't anywhere near enough to clear WP:GNC. No external sourcesSources are primary sources.Shadowjams (talk) 11:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Contrary to the claim made here, an external source was included at the article's creation. All the Barbershop Harmony Society quartet champions have articles (in place since 2006), which led me to begin adding them for Sweet Adelines International champions. —ADavidB 12:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Within the musician notability criteria, the subject of this article satisfies criterion 9, having "won ... a major music competition", and in so doing became the most prominent representative of womens barbershop singing (satisfying criterion 7). —ADavidB 14:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: While the initial source and another
aremay be considered primary, the A Cappella News source is secondary. —ADavidB 00:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 15:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reiterating - "a Swedish barbershop quartet that won the Sweet Adelines International Quartet Championship for 2007 in Las Vegas, Nevada in October 2006" That is the only claim to notability. The sources only backup that fact in the article. Nobody else has added any indications of notability although it's been tagged for what will be 3 weeks now. Shadowjams (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reiteration – Winning a major competition is a criterion for notability. Nobody else has questioned the quartet's notability. —ADavidB 07:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, ok. I thought everyone had forgot about this one. I guess my question is if this competition is notable. If it's a barbershop quartet, and this is the onlytime anybody's written about them, I don't see that as notable. But if this is a notable competition (I don't think it has a page itself) then perhaps winning it is enough on its own.
I think we'd both like to see more input on this issue. Shadowjams (talk) 07:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The "major competition" term isn't defined by the musician notability criteria, nor are examples given. The Sweet Adelines International organization which holds the competition has over 25,000 members. As noted in my first comment above, I patterned this article's creation after those for Barbershop Harmony Society champions; that organization has about 30,000 members. By winning these competitions, quartets become the most prominent representatives of their barbershop music style, another criterion for notability. —ADavidB 08:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, ok. I thought everyone had forgot about this one. I guess my question is if this competition is notable. If it's a barbershop quartet, and this is the onlytime anybody's written about them, I don't see that as notable. But if this is a notable competition (I don't think it has a page itself) then perhaps winning it is enough on its own.
- Keep per ADavidB's argument. Tomas e (talk) 15:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aiden Bay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been around since 2005 (and is its author's only contribution to Wikipedia), but there is no indication that Mr. Bay meets the standards of WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC, and the article cites no independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm not finding any in-depth coverage for this artist. Unable to verify the "Southwestern Idol" claim; even if true, does not satisfy criterion 9 of WP:MUSICBIO. Does not appear to meet any other criteria. Gongshow Talk 20:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unable to find significant coverage. Jujutacular T · C 19:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Jain University. As people have pointed out, there is nothing in the article to merge so a delete is appropriate; however, the title is a possible search term, so the contents will be deleted, and the title redirected to Jain University SilkTork *YES! 10:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Center for Management Studies, Jain University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One school of Jain University, no assertion of separate notability and content largely un-encyclopaedic leaflet style information and semi-advertisement. SGGH ping! 13:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, promotional and no sign of notability. Polarpanda (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 15:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Jain University rather than deleting it. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 17:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, highly selectively, to Jain University. The nominator has failed to address the merge possibility as required by WP:BEFORE. TerriersFan (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I personally didn't see any possibility for a merge. The content of this article is not encyclopaedia, its information-brochure. This is the second time I've had to remind people not to assume the nominator hasn't done these checks. WP:AGF! SGGH ping! 09:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I haven't assumed that you did not carry out the checks but stated that you haven't addressed them in your nomination. There is nothing in the nomination that argues the case against a merge. A better way is simply to address the question in the form "I considered a merge into the parent article but rejected it because ...". That also has the advantage of moving the debate forward, and may well convince others to your viewpoint. I would add that the parent article is a mess. The way forward that I would prefer is to remove the list of courses and replace them with short summaries of the schools. TerriersFan (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge any useful content and delete the rest. This is an advertisement, not an encyclopedic entry. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have added a sentence to Jain University mentioning the Center for Management Studies. The sentenece is not taken from the CMS article, the article does not contain any other useful content to be merged, and is not a useful search topic - so simple deletion is both possible and recommended. Abecedare (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The entire article is a brochure/spam. There is nothing to merge. -- Whpq (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I challenge the above "merge" commentators to find more than a few words in this advertisement that might be useful for a merger. Sandstein 06:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep. Trying to cleanup promotional content. I think it passes GNG as it is a department of a university recognized by the University Grants Commission of India. Geeteshgadkari (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. The nomination was for A7, but I couldn't even give it that much, so I zapped it under A1 for no context. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WCIT-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Possible hoax. Not a licensed television station, as far as I can tell. Possibly a YouTube channel, but I can't even confirm that. Eastmain (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails both WP:GNG and WP:WEB. The userpage of the creator indicates that it's a youtube channel, hence my A7. Ironholds (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete as either no context, non-notable web content, or a hoax. That is, I can hardly tell what this is claimed to be, and to the extent I can it sounds like either a YouTube channel or a non-existent New York TV station. WCIT is actually a Lima, Ohio-based radio station. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well how about we redirect it to WCIT (AM)? 58.170.83.117 (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)'Cause that's a radio station...ok...I got it. 58.170.83.117 (talk) 05:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as a figment of someone's imagination. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete You've got to be kidding me, it's in my imagination too. Momo san Gespräch 04:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete without delay. 11 year olds on the internets again.--Milowent (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Harris Gaitatzis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails notability guidelines as there is no significant coverage from reliable sources that I can find.
Fails to meet WP:Athlete, appearances with DSC Arminia Bielefeld reserves playing in the NRW-Liga (5th tier German football) and Football Club Saronno 1910 playing in the Eccellenza Lombardia (6th tier Italian football). Any appearances for the Blacktown City Demons are either at youth level or if at senior level are in the semi-professional NSW Premier League. Camw (talk) 11:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:16, 2 January 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, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. Article is a BLP so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Completely unsourced, and no evidence that he meets WP:Athlete. It seems fairly clear cut to me. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no evidence of notability, doesn't meet ATHLETE and nothing out there beyond club profile and local rag passing mentions as one would expect for local team so fails GNG--ClubOranjeT 22:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find a single media reference to him ... ever. Nfitz (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Does not meet anything, WP:ATHLETE included. JBsupreme (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Per lack of opposition. Sandstein 06:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Louis L. Gregory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:BIO requirement as I find no google news matches for this person under this name, though matches can be found for Uncle Louie Management and as that article (and Uncle Louie Music Group) exists and uses associated sources, this BLP seems unnecessary and overly promotional as well as failing the specific requirements of BIO. Ash (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete His management group is probably notable but I'm not so sure about him. No specific citations are given. There are a lot of external links but most are actually about the management group or the label, and do not support his own notability. Some do not mention him at all. For example the IMD database is listed but I could find nothing there about him, and I could find no such source as "Who is who in hip hop". --MelanieN (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Susan Hart (actress) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not appear to be notable according to Wikipedia:CSD#A7. Also, actress has only appeared in bit parts according to her imdb page. IndulgentReader (talk) 07:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Reywas92Talk 02:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actress. Joe Chill (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 00:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Stanford Charity Fashion Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable student group. OCNative (talk) 07:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Undoubtedly a worthy group, but no outside citations to establish notability. --MelanieN (talk) 06:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete student group at a single school, no notability claimed in article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I found: http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-05-17/living/17203240_1_student-models-cfs-black-student-union Racepacket (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: One sfgate.com piece is not enough coverage to meet Wikipedia:Notability. OCNative (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete purely local interest only. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non-notable event held at a school, only 1 Google news hit; doesn't seem to satisfy the notability guidelines. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Asia Technology Initiative (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable student group. OCNative (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Another in your string of student associations that have not garnered notice outside of campus. --MelanieN (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, just a college program. I can't find anything significant other than university and student sites, etc. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unable to find significant coverage. Jujutacular T · C 19:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete can't find significant off-campus coverage. Racepacket (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was G12. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Business Association of Stanford Engineering Students (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable student group. OCNative (talk) 07:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Usually student clubs don't have any mentions in the news media or books, but this one does. Care to address that? Abductive (reasoning) 08:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I found press releases, a trivial mention, and one source with significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 15:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This student association has gotten itself noticed in the wider world. For example, Business Week, www.inc.com, www.allbusiness.com. I think it qualifies as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Transwikied to WikiSource and redirected to Treaty of Tripoli. JForget 01:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Treaty with Algeria (1795) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be a source document, so it could be transwikied to WikiSource. There seems to be some concern with that, since WikiSource doesn't accept partial documents, I guess. Regardless of that though, the current article should be deleted since Wikipedia isn't the appropriate place for source documents (an article about the Treaty would be great though, if anyone is capable of creating one).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is the Treaty of Tripoli (q.v.). Wikisource has the text of the treaty. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 03:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that settles it then. This should be deleted as a semi-content fork (although creating a redirect to Treaty of Tripoli afterwords would seem to be a good idea)
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that settles it then. This should be deleted as a semi-content fork (although creating a redirect to Treaty of Tripoli afterwords would seem to be a good idea)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. listed for 21 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough comments to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Kool-Aid Kush & Convertibles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Declined an A9 speedy on this article as the subject's article exists. Per WP:NALBUMS, mixtapes are generally not notable, and I'm unable to find any reliable, third-party sources providing significant coverage of this subject. Tim Song (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - it's also the name of a track, which might account to the rather similar google hits. Shadowjams (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep [17] [18] [19] all accepted sources on wikipedia.
- That wording in nalbums needs to be de-emphasized: every official Lil Wayne mixtape is notable; every Clipse tape, every Chamillionaire tape, every Gucci Mane tape (and there are so many) probably passes GNG; we have notable artists who have never released a retail album (Freddie Gibbs, Max B, Jay Electronica etc.); outlets such as hiphopdx, mtv.com and XXL have set up columns devoted to covering notable mixtapes at this stage. 86.44.25.11 (talk) 16:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I wrote it up a bit with these above and a few other refs. 86.44.20.147 (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. JForget 00:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Phyzical Thurapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested PROD. Non-notable band. The references here virtually all point to the band's website, and the mention of the band appearing on Good Morning America is in fact referring to their music being in the background of a PSA that aired twice during the commercial segment of Good Morning America's broadcasts. Steamroller Assault (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 02:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article has been blanked as a copyright violation, but I believe that the AfD should resolve the question of whether or not the article is appropriate. Copyright violations can be addressed by permission, but that will not speak to notability. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OptiPNG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 00:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Portable Network Graphics. Worth mentioning there as an optimization program ([20] [21]), but there's not enough coverage for a separate article (despite Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload). Pcap ping 07:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand, there's plenty of coverage for this widely-used program 12:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- What coverage? Joe Chill (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The program is widely used. You can see almost all the PNG Commons images were compressed with OptiPNG. --MisterWiki talk contribs 02:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep People need a reliable source to find these kind of progams, objective information and a link to the home page. Having to rely on search engines only, people often arrive at "download sites" that most often only display ads. By chance they may download the desired program, or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.166.130 (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Wikipedia is not a reliable source according to itself. Pcap ping 11:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: This software is widely used by many users at Wikipedia (for Wikipedia). Please do not tag delete tag on everywhere. Silverlife (talk) 22:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Portable Network Graphics: A cursory search in Google Books and Bing brought up results that suggests that not only the PNG optimization topic has received enough coverage, OptiPNG and its derivatives (e.g PNGCrusher) are commonly noted. Therefore, merging the articles would resolve the notability issue. Fleet Command (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Claiming that something is "widely used" without providing citations from reliable third party publications is rather pointless. JBsupreme (talk) 18:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: No option on whether this has WP:RS yet, but I wanted to mention that it's not a totally frivolous entry: OptiPNG has 369 hits on Commons and 372 in Article+Template+Category+File on en.wikipedia.org itself. Not sure if File search on en.wikipedia.org and File search on Commons overlapped. I use OptiPNG followed by PNGOUT as a matter of course before I upload a PNG, including on Wikimedia projects. --Closeapple (talk) 11:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - despite claims to the contrary, i dont believe that any reliable sources have been presented. 'widely used' is not verifiable statement without a reliable source Theserialcomma (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy delete. G3 - obvious hoax J.delanoygabsadds 04:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Crab collars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Seems to be a hoax - not finding any sources for this sort of collar. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I do not know where to begin other than to say that you have to read the article before expressing an opinion. Then I believe it will be quite obvious. To the author, I did enjoy the piece! You have a talent that could be used to help the project. Happy New Year and thanks for the chuckle. JAAGTalk 01:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete obvious hoax. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete silly hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete, hoax. "Choose a colour that compliments your crab"? LOL! Glenfarclas (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can it; it's hilarious, but not appropriate for the encyclopedia. Perhaps the author was looking for Uncyclopedia or Urban Dictionary? PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 03:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Laughing all the way to the speedy delete It's a hoax, albeit well done. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 04:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I just copied this over to Uncyclopedia where it is more appropriate. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 04:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.