Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 January 31: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by Unitanode (talk) to last version by SunCreator
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/The First Men In The Moon in 3-D (film)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro (song)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alejandro (song)}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azulon Dolmayan}}
{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azulon Dolmayan}}

Revision as of 21:44, 31 January 2010

< 30 January 1 February >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Userfy

I am going to contact MichaelQSchmidt and see if he would be willing to have this userfied to his userspace at User:MichaelQSchmidt/The First Men In The Moon in 3-D (film) so that he can merge anything useable with his draft version (mentioned below). Due to editing time differences, I expect to get a reply while I am offline, and so will complete this close tomorrow morning (UTC). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The First Men In The Moon in 3-D (film)

The First Men In The Moon in 3-D (film) (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)

Crystal ball article, cites no sources, reads like press release. ¡ǝıʞʞǝɹʇ ʇuǝıɔuɐ (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. although this should not prevent a later redirect if a conensus for such later emerges on the talk page Scott Mac (Doc) 21:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro (song)

Alejandro (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The reason for this AFD discussion is because a few editors redirect the page claiming it is not notable. The relevant notabilty is found in WP:NSONG, this song has charted in the Official UK charts. SunCreator (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The The Fame Monster does not have CHART positions or structure of article. Of course you could merge any two articles together, but there would be no logic in doing so. You are correct that The Sun (newspaper) is a questionable source despite being the tenth biggest(by circularion) newspaper in the world, but what it says is not a factor to determine notability. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by structure of article? --Legolas (talk2me) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Now two national notable charts, but even one is notable enought for WP:NSONG SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can still be includewd in discography and Monster. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sensible comment. I don't think this is a case or ignore all rules myself however. Looking at the article how it stands now, it's quite presentable. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was anxiously waiting for you to reply my argument. Quite presentable? Well, that's in fact a case of opinion of view. Not trying to be rude or something, but to me, you just created a music and lyrics section and thrown one unreliable source for it. [1]; put three random reviews to the song which could be easily merged to The Fame Monster (Two of which are not exactly reviewing the song and also are/could be presented into the album critical reception) The live performances section also isn't needed since it's only one (technically) and it already is in the Monster Ball Tour article.
See? I'm just trying to see what's the point of this article if it doesn't have a worth background section, and every single thing here can be merged somewhere without a problem. Sparks Fly 23:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  1. The edit you refer to was made by IP 71.93.182.103. Be more careful before accusing me.
  2. The reason why a seperate article makes sense, is both structure and content. The structure allows for a logical progression and a central place to find information about the song. Content wise, placing it elsewhere creates problems of it being removed because it's not relevant to the other article. You could create a Alejandro section in the The Fame Monster article, but it will be an out of place looking section added to the bottom(?) that would make other editors want to remove it.
  3. If you don't believe the last point, please make a start by putting the music sample into the The Fame Monster article and see how it goes.
  4. WP:SIZERULE applies. How about you initiate a discussion on Talk:The_Fame_Monster and see if other editors are happy to split the article in two. As an active phone editor I'll be happy to support a split.
  5. The Policy says best practice is to use WP:NSONGS to determine if a seperate article is notable. You think it's not a problem to merge elsewhere, let me ask you, how is it a problem to have it as a seperate article?
SunCreator (talk) 00:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because users will be reading the same content twice, once in Fame Monster and here. Hence its a waste of article space. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect is approproiate, as opposed to keep, because of WP:NSONGS, please read the third sentence in the third paragraph. "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album". To assume that it will grow beyond its present state is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. This information should be merged and redirected to The Fame Monster. J04n(talk page) 18:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. SunCreator (talk) 19:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I read that third sentence. Think about what you said 'unlikely ever to grow' does not apply here, we are not talking about some song from 30 years ago with no new information which that wording is intended for; this is as yet unreleased single on the currently most popular(by Google hits, google news, wikipedia page views etc) artists in the world. To contend that this article is 'unlikely ever to grow' is a fantasy. Indeed, there is lots that can be said already and some editors start to add it but it gets removed as they awaiting WP:RS, not blogs etc. If that was not the case you would see an article like fr:Alejandro_(Lady_Gaga) already. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We already know that this will be released as a single, so why should we redirect it when we'll just have to make it again? That seems a little pointless to me. Besides, more information will be found as the weeks and months go by, and more people will continue to make pages like this. I don't see a valid reason to delete it. Sure, there isn't too much information, but it isn't like Wikipedia absolutely has to have every article be huge. Look at all the others on Wikipedia. The bottom line is, even though there isn't much information now, more will come in the near future. The page will expand in time. Even if you delete this page, others will create more and we'll have discussions like this one again. Why don't we just leave it alone? Weaselpie (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, your point is simple the best definition of what is WP:CRYSTAL. Take a look at this and see if what you brought is still valid. And second, who are we? There's no current information about this being single, and even if this is in fact a single, it's still not enough for it's own page, being a single doesn't warrant that. Third, if the consensus of this page will be delete/redirect, people could create the article 100x and we would delete all these times, we just need to know what do do. I won't consider this last as one of your points but still. Sparks Fly 00:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is also interesting how it is all "edit once in a full moon"-people that pops up to say keep. Nymf talk/contr. 21:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


WP:FANCRUFT is a serious issue here. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That's why we have notability critera to determine the difference. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And we seriously don't need duplicate content to exist. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Once in a full moon"? I am certainly not that kind of person. I have made many contributions to Wikipedia in my time as a member. And I'm not just doing this to be stubborn. Almost every day I am seeing new news posts about how Lady GaGa wants to cast Lara Stone in her music video for Alejandro (most came from various European newspapers, but some also came from American ones). I feel that there is no reason to delete this page because a) it will just end up being a waste of time for the people who worked on it and b) there is a very likely chance that it will end up being a single. You'll just waste your time deleting it while others make more. And, eventually, if it is released, it will have been a mistake to have deleted it in the first place. Why should this page about Alejandro, a likely candidate to be a single, be deleted when Ke$ha's song, Blah Blah Blah, hasn't even been released at all? If this is because the page doesn't have much information, it's like I said before: more info will come in time. Again, I see no reason to delete the page. By the way - "Once in a full moon" should be "once in a blue moon". A full moon comes around once a month, right? Sounds pretty frequent if you ask me. Weaselpie (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it has anything to do with the topic at all, but once in a full moon is exactly what I was referring to. People who pop up once a month to do 2-3 edits. Besides, we aren't suggesting that the page be deleted; we are suggesting that it should be redirected. That way it can be restored when/if it becomes notable. As for your comment about casting and that other article supposedly justifying this article, see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and Wikipedia:Speculation. Nymf talk/contr. 02:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Chart information. Article structure. Information on the song. None of which you would want in The Fame Monster. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Fame Monster already has them and is needed there. Adding a wikia link doesnot qualify for notable source. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You two provided the same point, but I still don't find it worth. The song was never used as a official promotional single; it went only for iTunes before the whole album and still, this is a "fan-known thing", there's no source backing it as a single to promote the album. Sparks Fly 21:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with Sparks. --Legolas (talk2me) 06:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In what way do you consider it doesn't meet WP:NSONG. It has charted in the UK charts and I just found out it charted in the Hungarina charts also. SunCreator (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has charted in two territories therefore it meets notability guidlines. It doesn't have to be in the singles chronology but since it's charted it should have it's own page the same as Beautiful, Dirty Rich or Wait Your Turn from Rihanna. Jayy008 (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I Disagree, I wasn't basing it on WP:CRYSTAL. I was basing it on meeting notability guidlines. Jayy008 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Never have I seen it argued at AFD that an article should be of GA quality before! Wikipedia has no such criteria. We do not delete article below GA standard. Wikipedia is work in progress; see WP:NOTDONE. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except for charting, it doesnot meet any other notability guideline, fail again. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You want an article to be notable for two reasons? One is enough. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge, almost every song from The Fame Monster has charted so should we have a page for each one? Same with Beyonce's I Am Sasha Fierce. This is become a pointless argument. It is a breach of WP:crystal. The info could easily be contained on the album's page. Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's the whole point that we want to know. People are assuming that just because two dubious websites have talked about a music video, that it's already a single. Sparks Fly 22:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm glad you both brought that up, as it's a common misconception. WP:NSONG does not say it has to be a released single or have a released video. WP:NSONG does say however, the song has to chart - which this song has. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that is a silly pointless comment because BPI and RIAA have said that due to the growth in sales from places like AMazon and iTunes more and more album songs are being sold individually without being released fully as singles. This could mean that eventually we could have pages for every song on an album whether its released or not. there is not enough information here to warrant its own page. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Take a look at this graph. It's the average number of new tracks each week in the UK Singles Chart. In the 1994-2005 period before downloads the average was around 18 per week. Today it is about 9; about half of what it was before downloads. Meaning that wikipedia will create much less song articles since the download era then it did before. SunCreator (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The exception being those where is nothing there will ever be anything to write about. That does not apply here. Consider fr:Alejandro (Lady Gaga) for starters. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Alejandro has charted in the top 5 in hungary! it should be kept as it is clearly a huge hit there and has met more success than most of her songs there. It is also highly likely to be released as a single. For the time it should be kept as it is a highly charting song by Lady Gaga, but when/if it is released as a single, there will be a strong argument to keep it anyway.
  • Redirect - Even if the song has charted in the top 5 in Hungray, that virtually means nothing for basis in an article. Re-establish article when there is more notability, the single has been confirmed, etc. Candyo32 (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The chart means everything, it's the agreed criteria for whether a song is notable or not. SunCreator (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but as I said before, what's the point of a whole article just to show that the song hit Top 75 in the U.K. when her discography page already does it? Just ignore this notability rule essay that you point for a second and think. Sparks Fly 13:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's not just the Charts. I highlighted that because it's the information that makes the article notable. There is other information, some of which I added today on the critical reception of the single. Wikipedia is a work in progress so don't expect it all done. Also this article exceeds a stub, wikipedia has 3,186,672 articles of which at least 1,444,438 are stubs. Go get argeement to delete them all and then I'd review your point. SunCreator (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Erhm... I do think that you can provide your opinion here moreover a keep argument, since you were the one who nominated the article for delete. (?) Sparks Fly 14:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
  1. I created this AFD to get discussion. I was open and hopefully there was some logical reason that a few editors redirect this article. I did not say delete or keep, so necessary to clarify my position having heard the opinions of others.
  2. AFD is a discussion not a WP:!VOTE so frankly saying I cannot 'provide your opinion' is silly. SunCreator (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If you nominate an article for deletion, that presumably means that you are going to present a argument to delete the article. So, when you came here to say that you want to keep the article seemed unfamiliar. If you wanted to get a consensus for keeping the article you should have stuck to the talk page. Sparks Fly 20:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - That would of been ideal. But I could not 'stick to the talk page' as the article(and talk) was salted and uneditable. An admin agreed to unsalt if it went to Afd. SunCreator (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to The Fame Monster. As was pointed out, most of the information is covered at that article, information about this song charting can be covered there if it is not already present, and there is not enough information. Yes, this meets WP:NSONGS by having charted on two national music charts, but that policy also states, "Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." We can't just make an article for every song that's ever charted simply because it charted, there has to be sufficient information, and this simply just doesn't have enough. –Chase (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two points on 'unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs' :
    1. It's is wild speculation to assume this article is not ever going to grow. Plenty of things I already know to add to it. It's not some song from the 1940 or something.
    2. Stub. On the issue of stubs, you are assuming it's not beyond a stub already. I contend it's past that point, no one has labelled it a stub. I asked over at Stub sorting if it was a stub. I got the clear reply No, that's far beyond a stub, in my opinion. — Martin
SunCreator (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment, it not as if this information couldn't be included on the album's page until there is clearer indication that this is a single. Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – it is also wild speculation to assume that this article will grow. It's not a single, it's not confirmed to be a single, so until it is confirmed as a single or it receives a substantial amount of coverage for whatever reason, we should assume it will likely not grow. Also, as Sparks Fly pointed out, it's beyond ridiculous to have a page with information that is conveyed/could be conveyed at other, larger articles just because its subject charted as a non-single. Please note that WP:NSONGS states that charting probably makes a song notable. There is not enough information about it to be notable at this point. –Chase (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems after research that there is some info for the background of the article. I will try to add them and let's see. Also, I forgot that the song is extensively being performed at The Monster Ball Tour. Hence it does pass WP:NSONGS. --Legolas (talk2me) 04:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Per WP:NSONGS, an independent article is "only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". I'm not terribly convinced that the sources provide in-depth coverage for the song, but I do believe the article now meets the "reasonably detailed" standard. Also, songs that have charted are "probably notable" (though not inherently notable). Taking all factors into account, I support keeping as a separate article.  Gongshow Talk 05:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I would like to note that the information worth keeping—songwriting information, performance of song on tour, chart positions, and critical reception—could all be easily discussed in the main article, The Fame Monster. The "limited release" claim is unsourced, the music video claim has sources (Digital Spy, The Sun) that are not notable, and the track listing is plain false information since it hasn't even been released as a single. There is no reason why this shouldn't be merged. –Chase (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete both per WP:SNOW. Both articles salted. –MuZemike 01:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Azulon Dolmayan

Azulon Dolmayan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has been A7'd twice in the past three days. Now it appears to claim he was in Harry Potter, although there's no entry for this individual on IMDB. Also a COI. Shadowjams (talk) 21:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Federer Grand Slam statistics

Roger Federer Grand Slam statistics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a copy-pasted fork of Roger Federer career statistics. I don't know if there's some consensus on whether this type of forking is appropriate, but it seems excessive. The information's duplicated in the career stats article, and I don't think that article's suffering from size problems, especially given how well it's organized. I worry about the idea of split off stats for every tournament. Shadowjams (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created the new article for the statistics because the original one was way too large. So the idea was to split it, i.e. the statistics of the Grand Slams on one side and then the others. It sill needs a lot of work, but is a start. The table of all the matches of Federer in Grand Slams is too big to be included in the original statistics article. That is why I removed it from that article to create a new one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanguito Wiki (talk • contribs) 21:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I would assume that this article was created on account of the stats page being 124kb - and thus the edit page says that we're to consider splitting it into sub-pages due to Wp:SIZE (which is just a guideline and not a policy). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I acknowledge that it's a large stat page, and that's obviously the motivation, but the kb size metric is misleading since there's a lot of markup on that page. In terms of finding the relevant information it's a lot more convenient to use the TOC at the top and have all of the information in one place. Otherwise I think the natural conclusion on this page is to split every major tournament out to its own, at which point it's well beyond FORK guidelines. But like I said, I'm not sure on consensus, so I brought it here. Shadowjams (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Local Ghost Haunts

Local Ghost Haunts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can find no reliable sources to establish the notability of this web series. Sarilox (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable YouTube material. The article gives no independent sources at all. Searches produce the organisation's own web site, YouTube, MySpace, etc etc, but no evidence of significant independent coverage. Article was created as promotion by COI editor (he/she uses "we" in a talk page in reference to "Local Ghost Haunts"). JamesBWatson (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 02:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Snowden

Dave Snowden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written like a resumé and unsourced, tagged since 2008/2007 Pevos (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy Delete per G12 by Nyttend. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin B. Alderson, Jr.

Edwin B. Alderson, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite everything that he has done in his life, I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sharpie Permanent Markers

List of Sharpie Permanent Markers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable list Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn. I didn't notice that there was already an AfD and that notability was shown in it. I'll add the links from the previous AfD to the article. Joe Chill (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benat Achiary

AfDs for this article:
Benat Achiary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All that I can find in Google is Youtube, Answers.com, music sites that are just profiles or trivial mentions of his such as CD Universe and Emusic, and lyrics. All that I can find in Google News is lots of Magnum Photos results which is a site for photography. This paragraph that I found in Google Books shows that he might be notable. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 17:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ikonboard

Ikonboard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly non-notable software. No coverage in reliable independent sources that I can see. Some IPs are edit warring over it, so I assume a WP:PROD would be contested. Pcap ping 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of this article is based on forum posts, but it does have a source that passes WP:RS, this interview on Sitepoint's web site. There are lot of google books hits, but many of those are because "ikonboard.cgi" appears in some url cited in the book. That fact and the interview suggest this software was widely used, so it may be of historical importance. This 2002 Que Publishing book explicitly says it's one of the most "famous and notable" together with WWWBoard, WebBBS, and YABB. I'm going to leave this open for now, hopefully more convincing secondary sources will be found. Pcap ping 23:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm a former developer of Ikonboard, later Ikonforums. It's true that this software was once widely used. Searches for Ikonboard will still generate hundreds of thousands of hits. Mostly running the popular (and more or less last) releases of Ikonboard, 3.1.2a and 3.1.3. It's now mostly just a cult hit. The original creator of Ikonboard later went on to found Invision Power Services, so the connection to a semi-notable person (the link to Matthew Mecham is still red though) does exist. Do reliable sources exist? Probably not. It's long since faded into obscurity on the web, so its unlikely new sources will come out. Whether or not this amounts to anything notable, I don't know. ^demon[omg plz] 13:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Weak) Keep: As per ^demon I'm also a former developer of Ikonboard. I think that historically Ikonboard had notability and as the book link suggests it used to be a very popular software competing with other software which is still notable. That said these days it is nowhere near as notable as it once was, in my opinion ownership battles and mis-management affected development and lost many of its users. The article has some independent interviews to provide third-party sourcing, unfortunately some third-party sites such as swarf.net have ceased operating. The web archive is the only reliable method of recording official announcements as ownership of the ikonboard.com domain appears to have been lost. I doubt it will be possible to provide any reliable third-party sourcing of any future development. I would suggest the article remains semi-protected though it would appear much of the IP based editing/vandalism has been done by the current developer WP:COI (based on User_talk:68.213.153.149). Brollachan (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but should be refactored to focus on the software, not on the people behind it. Take out the "it is believed" cruft; let people make their own decisions from facts that can be cited. GreenReaper (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's old, and not really used any more, but it definitely held a place of great relevance in the forum software community once upon a time. It was the only free bulletin board that offered a robust feature set comparable to that of paid solutions at the time. 205.215.210.10 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. (X! · talk)  · @245  ·  04:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YaBB

YaBB (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)

Marginally notable forum software. No independent source provided in the article, except for an interview. Pcap ping 20:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnotable software that FAILS WP:N; minor mentions and a single interview are just not enough coverage to meet notability requirements, and its being the ancestor of some other software does not make it notable enough for its own artice. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Jayjg (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emmalyn Estrada

Emmalyn Estrada (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 singer who does not meet WP:MUSICBIO. Absolutely zero news coverage except for one article listing her name as a nominee in the "Dance/Urban/Rhythmic" category for a Canadian Radio Music Award, which, as the redlink shows, is not "a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." No other evidence of notability. My PROD was contested with the comment, "lots of airplay of single in Toronto," but MUSICBIO asks whether an artist "[h]as been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network."  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now without prejudice to recreation in the future if she becomes notable. Currently, she is a one-hit wonder; note that WP:MUSIC states: A musician may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. While she may meet at least one of the criteria for music, she fails the basic criteria of WP:BIO, which in my view means shes not yet notable. Wine Guy~Talk 08:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added some more sources. One-hit wonder is a bit speculative, don't you think? Give her a chance, she's only 17. The fact that I heard her song on the radio several times a day for the past 6-months or so tells me she's at least somewhat notable. –xenotalk 00:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not speculative at all, she is currently known only because she has had one single which has gotten a reasonable amount of radio play. Since she is young, perhaps she will continue on to a very successful career, but that is speculation. Like I said above, I have no problem with this article being re-created when and if she becomes notable. Wine Guy~Talk 00:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've adequately demonstrated she fulfills at least two criterion of MUSICBIO and thus already is notable. As far as the "one hit wonder", no; I still think it is crystal balling to apply that label to her at this time. Only if her future singles do not achieve critical or popular success can we say that. Also, calling her a one-hit wonder kind of defeats your argument that she is not notable, no? Wonders are notable. :) –xenotalk 01:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Peicott

Joseph Peicott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography of a young associate producer of some TV episodes for whom I can find no coverage whatsoever in reliable sources. (There was another Joseph Peicott, killed near Boston in 1993 in a traffic accident.) He does not appear to meet WP:CREATIVE or any other aspect of WP:BIO.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus, with a merge discussion encouraged on the article's talk page. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet Relay Chat bots

List of Internet Relay Chat bots (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a directory service, and that includes non-notable scripts and bots. The bulk of the red links became red links as a result of separate AFD discussions, lists are not intended to be an end-run around our notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: An awful lot of IRC-related articles have been proposed for deletion in the past few days: Comparison of IRC clients, Colloquy, various other articles on specific IRC clients (more examples of the "separate AfD discussions" JBsupreme mentions). I think it would benefit WP if there was some general discussion and consensus around how to cover the topic as a whole, rather than just randomly/non-systematically nominating specific articles for deletion. I'm concerned that the latter approach, focusing on individual articles without thinking about the larger context, could have the unintended effect of hollowing out WP's coverage of IRC. Jd4v15 (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an Internet Relay Chat bot article, general coverage of the topic can take place there. JBsupreme (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then instead of deleting we should merge the article under discussion into that main article (although I also think Arsenikk makes a good case for keep below). After all, Internet Relay Chat bot notably lacks any mention of specific bots that are currently widely used, presumably because it has been relying on List of Internet Relay Chat bots to provide that information. If you're going to propose List of Internet Relay Chat bots for deletion because you think it's a directory, the least you could do is take the good bits and put them in Internet Relay Chat bot first; otherwise that information just gets lost, which benefits no one.
But you haven't addressed my actual point, which is that a heck of a lot of IRC-related articles (not just the one under discussion) are being proposed for deletion in a non-obvious way that ignores the bigger picture. The current approach is going to damage Wikipedia's coverage of the topic. Jd4v15 (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are only two currently valid entries on the list. This isn't a loss to WP. Miami33139 (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Armbrust Talk Contribs 02:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 08:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A list of software which performs a similar task, where the information can be verified and it is presented in a NPOV and encyclopedic way is acceptable. I notice that a all the red articles I checked were prod-deleted, which unfortunately involves a considerably less extensive process than through AfD. In the latter, normally several people will search to try to either establish or disestablish notability. This is rarely the case for prods; I am simply not convinced that there are so few notable IRC bots. All a bot needs is a few articles around the web in nerdy news outlets, and they will be fine. Even if most of the entries not notable, this list does not constitute a directory as long as it is discriminate in some way; there is not rule to say that a list on Wikipedia must consist of only items which are notable in themselves, as long as the whole is notable, and I hope no-one believes the concept of a IRC bot to be non-notable. Arsenikk (talk) 10:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There has been no activity on this AfD for 4-5 days and it seems to me there is no consensus: those who spoke up in favor of deletion have not responded to Arsenikk's points, which seem worthy of serious consideration. I'm not sure what the appropriate next step is (close the AfD? ask for an outside opinion?), so I'm commenting again to draw the attention of someone more knowledgeable. Jd4v15 (talk) 06:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I believe the argument above, that the list being composed mostly of red links leads to deletion, is wrong. The criteria for lists do not require that entries have individual articles, and the criteria for notability apply to individual articles not to every fact within an article.
    It would be useful if there were a comparative "List of ..." for every class of software, and then the vast majority of deletion discussions for non-notable could be answered with "merge to list" rather like "merge to album/band" for a song. The solution to the red links is to de-link the names in the list article. Sussexonian (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Internet Relay Chat bot. Neither the article nor this list is long enough to require separate treatment. Once merged, the list can be edited, expanded, or removed, as appropriate, through the normal editing process. –Black Falcon (talk) 21:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merge with Internet Relay Chat bot to a section of Client-server and keep List of Internet Relay Chat bots. The IRC Client/Computing article (aka the list of IRC bots) does have significant potential to develop into an article that focus on the various features of IRC that makeup the culture of the net. (e.g. Chatroom, Hackers, LAN IRC Bots Culture, Botnet, HotSpots...etc.) --75.154.186.6 (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 21:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you just said is totally irrelevant to WP:NOTADIRECTORY. Wikipedia has a lot of articles that compare functionality e.g. Comparison of video player software section 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or List of free massively multiplayer online games. The article merely present the article in a different structure to assist users in visualization and help introduce other knowledge aspect such as history of development, current challenges and other insightful sources that can be added. (Nice try in trying to fool other wikipedians for your discrimination bias and group synthesis conditioning, unfortunately the truth will remain the truth). - I seriously doubt you even check the article responsibly, likewise to every other users in wikipedia who constantly make unconstructive per claims while unable to provide any reference and evidence at all with a structural hierarchy of presentation in paragraph, short list form, tables...etc. --173.183.103.112 (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a standard type of article. This is not a directory of every such one known, but a discussion of the important ones. That's selective & discriminating. DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, not really. If we were to to be selective and reduce this list down to the only two which are important (in Wikipedia terms) we would be left with a whopping two bots left to compare. (!) JBsupreme (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with DGG. It's got a good criteria for inclusion, has a full table instead of some mere list, and has easy room for expansion. My concern would be that the list of notable bots is small, making the need for the list moot, but I'd rather give it some time to fill in rather than throw it out now. Shadowjams (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somali Irrigation

Somali Irrigation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you call on an ipod touch

Can you call on an ipod touch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide I42 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Golden

Josh Golden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Get Ready For This (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Feels Like Christmas (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this meets WP:MUSIC. Josh Golden is a runner-up in a Radio Disney talent show, with two iTunes-only released. Unsigned to any label. Nominating him and his two iTunes EPs for deletion. —Kww(talk) 19:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tigran Mansuryan

Tigran Mansuryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Content merged into Tigran Mansurian; list of works was a complete duplicate anyway, so there was not much to merge. Classical geographer (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in AdventureQuest

List of characters in AdventureQuest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a list of characters for a video game of marginal notability, itself at AfD. Contested prod, with argument normal accepted type of article; better than individual articles of characters, hardly an "uncontroversial deletion". Pcap ping 19:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makes me think of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional characters who can fly.--Prodigy96 (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Unresolved issue of whether the sources qualify as reliable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gamble Fish

Gamble Fish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Unreferenced article about a manga with no assertion of notability. Fails WP:BK. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commment A 15 vols-ongoing series published by Akita Shoten([5]). No licensor outside Japan. Absent not only from Anime News Network database but also from the reported news, meaning not a single volume of this series made it into the Japanese manga charts. --KrebMarkt 18:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable magazine that's been around since 1969, features this, thus vast numbers of potential readers for the series exist. The series wouldn't last that long in a popular magazine without a significant number of fans. Manga related magazines don't often review manga found in their competition's magazines, nor are most manga reviewed anywhere at all, thus the suggested guidelines aren't relevant here, you having to ignore them and think for yourself, using common sense. Dream Focus 21:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability can't be inherited, no volumes among the 15 released managed to make it into the manga charts and there no much hype around it in manga fan community with scanlation lagging behind with less than half of the chapters done. Call to good sense is based on the credits you give to the editor making the call. --KrebMarkt 07:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For now, a discussion can easily be brought up on the talk page on japanese reference finding and such. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pushing for no consensus. This article notability issue is not resolved. Saying it has 15 volumes just won't make me vote keep, it just stopped me for voting delete. No evidence of notability were provided and only the existence of the series was asserted. If nothing change this one will be back to Afd for another that's certainty. If such thing occurs, i wish to avoid keep vote based it was keep in the previous Afd argument. Closing admin should read my position as vote to counterweight the Keep votes and aiming for no consensus result. --KrebMarkt 07:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure we can vote for no consensus, and I'm not sure it'll fly given only the nominator has actually said delete. There's circumstantial evidence of notability, enough so I'm unwilling to say delete, but nothing at hand that demonstrates it to the callous letter of The Law, so I'm also unwilling to say keep outright. I'm going with no vote here. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week delete While 15 published volumes is an indication of notability, there has been no reliable third-party sources presented for this series. Without them, the article can be nothing more than a mere a plot summary. —Farix (t | c) 17:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SPYRO Suite

SPYRO Suite (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)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 02:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DustiSPEAK!! 18:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 02:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in the Meritocracy: The Undereducation of an Overachiever

Lost in the Meritocracy: The Undereducation of an Overachiever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost no content iBentalk/contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 18:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Sure it's a stub, but a cursory Google search reveals a lot of information. The book is clearly notable. I have added content and references to the article so please take another look at it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Additional comment: I see that this was nominated for deletion, as having "almost no content", only half an hour after the article was created, and while the creator was clearly still working on it (e.g. creating an infobox). Surely we should give people a little time to establish content, before complaining about lack of content!--MelanieN (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In response: Please use the {{under construction}} tag.-- iBentalk/contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? It says "In general, this template should not be used for new articles with little content."
Personally, I often start an article small, and add information as I research it. Wikipedia seems to accept this approach, see Wikipedia:stub. "A stub is an article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject, but not so short as to provide no useful information, and it should be capable of expansion." The fact that an article is a stub, or is very short, is not one of the reasons for deletion.
BTW I am not the author of the article, and I know nothing about this book except what I researched - never heard of it before today. I am just a person who likes to occasionally "rescue" an article from deletion, when I think the subject has merit.--MelanieN (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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

With no further discussion occurring, the concensus here is obviously to delete. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danah International Science School

Danah International Science School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost no content, no refs iBentalk/contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 18:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source, TerriersFan? I don't see it on the article or here. tedder (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do I, now, since one of the sources turns out to be the same school! More work is needed to establish verifiability. TerriersFan (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A14(M) motorway

A14(M) motorway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is mostly nonsense not backed up by the sources given. It is true that the A14(M) is an unsigned motorway, however it is actually a short section a mile long, commonly considered to be part of the A1(M). It is only referred to on paper.

I attempted to redirect this to the A14 article but the user has just undone the action. The section about the planned upgrade is true, but given that it was only on the cards for 3 years and never really got far in the planning process, certainly doesn't give it notability. Jeni (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Sorry, but where have you backed up your point? Where are your official sources? Personally I have no knowledge of this designation and the road is not built to motorway standards. Where are your references from Hansard? By coincidence I have found official reference in the 1960s to a potential M45 running west from Ipswich - I guess it was intended to link to the M45 in Warwickshire but, with respect, that is another story and does not give credibility to this article. PeterEastern (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, here is a reference from the highways agency to the A604(M) as well.[8]. We hear what you are saying Rstallard2, but these references are about past plans, there was also a plan for an M12, but that doesn't mean I insist that part of the current A12 is a motorway - a motorway is a legal classificiation and I have no evidence that the A14 has that designation today - do you? If you started your article, "The A14(M) was a proposed name for a section of the current A14" then that would be more sensible. PeterEastern (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability. I do not recall a precedent of all "secret unsigned motorways" having some inherent notability. Edison (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A bit of OR from me: I am a not infrequent user of the A14 over many sections, but in particular the London end and the M6 to M11 area. The section in question here is definitely not built to motorway standard, and while there might have been (and probably were - I'm not casting doubts on Rstallard2's research) it never has been one, and would take considerable work to be of motorway standard. I think the relevant info should be in the A14 article (and also that the **** road should have been built as a motorway as well, but that's PoV...). BTW, if the info on Rstallard2's page is correct, I would congratulate him/her on her/his achievements (spelling...) both here and outside. Peridon (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We seem to be getting off track a bit, above. The question is not if the subject existed (as a road or a proposal, or whatever), but whether the subject is notable under our policies. In this case, I agree with Jeni - a well-constructed reference in the A14 article would be sufficient. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now researched the available reliable evidence and sumarised it on the A14 talk page here. There is clearly evidence that a 1.2 mile section of the A14 has had and does have many amusingly contradictory designations but there is no evidence whatsoever that there is any current 'secret' motorway of any greater length. I stick with my earlier vote of Delete and will roll the content from the talk page into the A14 article in due course. PeterEastern (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --John (talk) 07:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory P. Joseph

Gregory P. Joseph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article has requested its deletion at OTRS ticket#2010013110017466. I tend to support the deletion; he does not appear to meet WP:BIO from what I can see. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Just a point of order; why would we start an AfD because the subject of a BLP requests it? If the information in the article were objectionable for reasons of accuracy or POV language etc., then the relevant text could be removed on that basis but off-wiki correspondence (that I cannot read for myself) should not be mentioned as part of the nomination here. To avoid doubt, the AfD should be based purely on the merits of the article, in this case the nominator's opinion that the article fails notability guidelines which I presume is true here (disregarding the "tend to support" qualification). Ash (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Re "why would we start an AfD because the subject of a BLP requests it?": we start an AfD whenever anyone requests it. I don't see any reason to deny this privilege to the subject of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was THIS IS A TITLE. JForget 02:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Think Tank Forums

Think Tank Forums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly non-notable software. Very marginal coverage in reliable independent sources. Pcap ping 17:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 17:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FUDforum

FUDforum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly non-notable software. One paragraph review at the most in obscure sources. Pcap ping 17:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC) (nom withdrawn, see below)[reply]

There are a number of other references to the forum from a number of different places:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 02:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Adams

Dean Adams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All that I can find in Google is profiles. I found zero sources in Google News and Google Books. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 17:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FluxBB

FluxBB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly non-notable software. No coverage in reliable independent sources that I can see. Pcap ping 17:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 17:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: All that I can find in Google is the official site, download sites, forums, a question and answer site, blogs, and hacking information. All that I can find in Google News is a download site and trivial mentions. All that I can find in Google Books is three trivial mentions. Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Not sure if this is the correct way to register a "keep" vote, but the reason for the lack of coverage may be the fact it is a fork of a previous software package called PunBB that was sold to a commercial entity - FluxBB is the very actively supported open source fork of that commercialised project. I personally run two forums (www.ibmportal.com which has been around for years) and another newer forum on it. Ben G — Bgiddins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep:You only have to be present on the FluxBB Forums to realise this is an active community dedicated to the improvement of the bloat-free forum package... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.212.4 (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I meant to comment on this earlier and must have slipped... in any case I cannot find significant / non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications to meet our general notability guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 06:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is certainly notable software, being one of the major "light weight" competitors to the omnipresent phpBB boards. The reason there is not much mention may well be that FluxBB only recently split out from PunBB, but it is my impression that by far the majority of PunBB community followed along with FluxBB in the split, leaving PunBB as a more or less abandoned project. FluxBB is certainly being very actively developed, and is being widely used. --Pinnerup (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If deleted, it will be revived. As a fork from one of the most-used forum web applications that has literally millions of uses every week, users will come here and describe the history of the creation and looking for background. Like most web software that is a utility, there are not going to be many articles on this; mainly blog reviews on how to use it, how it is being changed. The industry blogs and reviews are the reliable sources on this kind of topic. - Yellowdesk (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 21:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. ... discospinster talk 03:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of documentaries

List of documentaries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page should either be renamed Lists of documentary films or just deleted, it seems to me. Or is this valid as a redirect? The only content are three links that could easily be added to the See also section of Documentary film. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC) WITHDRAWN per below[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EbilGames

EbilGames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If the company is tethering on the verge of non-notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artix Entertainment (4th nomination)), then their site that holds their more obscure games surely is even less notable. Pcap ping 16:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Scott Mac (Doc) 21:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AdventureQuest

AfDs for this article:
AdventureQuest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only reviewed on seemingly obscure sites. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artix Entertainment (4th nomination). Pcap ping 16:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC) (I think the sources found below are adequate. 01:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pune Gliding Center

Pune Gliding Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Seems to be a non-notable field, sources mention it tangentially; a few famous people appear to have visited it, but I'm not sure that confers notability in the sense that we require it. Do we have any relevant guidelines here? Anyway, opening to the community for insight and opinions. GlassCobra 16:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Marasmusine (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AdventureQuest Worlds

AdventureQuest Worlds (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)

Nominating for deletion because the WP:reliability of the sites mmorpg.com and mmohut.com, which reviewed this game, has been called into question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artix Entertainment (4th nomination). Pcap ping 16:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spank jazz

Spank jazz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested Prod. Article is an unreferenced assertion of a genre founded on one track on an album by a defunct band. There is no Wikipedia page for the band or the album. No genre references on AllAboutJazz; only reference on Allmusic is the album track title itself. AllyD (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified WikiProject Jazz. AllyD (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)#[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Usman

Khalid Usman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two-line biographical article about a chartered accountant and former town councillor. Sporadically mentioned and quoted in local media, but nothing approaching siginficant coverage. Subject fails WP:POLITICIAN. --RrburkeekrubrR 15:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Doesn't meet WP:N and WP:ENT, and WP:MUSIC qualifications are extremely marginal. Jayjg (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaori Kusakabe

Kaori Kusakabe (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 evidence of notability. Only one support role doesn't constitute a voice actor career and thus fail WP:ENTERTAINER. It has a Japanese Wikipedia article that doesn't offer much room for further investigation. My vote is Delete. KrebMarkt 15:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 21:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This person only meets one of the criteria for WP:MUSIC and even then it's questionable as she only sang on a track on each album, they're not her works. She hasn't been acting in enough productions to qualify under WP:ENTERTAINER. If anyone could bring up any other important contributions to productions she might barely pass but as it is she doesn't. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 15:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Dreamfocus (don't forget voice actors are big stars in Japan).--Karljoos (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not agree that her performing on a couple of tracks means she meets #2 or #5 of WP:MUSIC as they are not her albums, #6 doesn't apply (it may apply to Samurai Troopers but that isn't under debate), #10 is probably the closest you can get but there is a caveat and I don't think she performed the opening or ending themes so I don't see that applying. However, it is pretty clear that any 'real world' notability (as opposed to the wikipedia notability rules) is derived from her performance in the show rather than the music spin-offs. There doesn't seem to be enough to meet WP:ENT, and the general notability guidelines are certainly not met. Quantpole (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is not even close. Her voice is incidental on the albums. Fails WP:ENT, fails WP:MUSIC. --Bejnar (talk) 02:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Hussar. Or to another appropriate article.  Sandstein  07:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gusar light cavalry

Gusar light cavalry (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 discusses the development of hussars in the mediaeval Serbian military. With no reliable sources (one of the two references is self-published, and the other is a wargaming website) there's nothing in this article that belongs in Wikipedia. Under normal conditions, I'd simply redirect this to "hussar", but it's an unlikely redirect — substituting "G" for "H" is likely the result of transliteration between the Latin and Cyrillic alphabets [q.v. the Russian article on ru:О. Генри, which transliterates to "O. Genry" rather than O. Henry] and thus not likely to be a plausible redirect. Nyttend (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge .Just needs some love and care to be added to other article!!!...They a very well known... most would call them by there later name hussars (Husar, or гусар, Gusar).. /hʊˈzɑr/; also spelling pronunciation /həˈsɑr/) is from the Hungarian huszár. This word originates from the Serbian husar or gusar, meaning pirate, derived from the Medieval Latin cursarius (cf. the English word corsair)Webster's Third New International. Hussar. isbn 0-85229-503-0 . Page 1105[13] [14] [15]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Already two delete votes, so the second relist was not necessary JForget 01:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Musca (window manager)

Musca (window manager) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find significant independent coverage for this software. Deleted as prod but restored as contested without adding any sources. Pcap ping 15:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plain Talk Volume 1-Everything you ever and never wanted to know about Racism and Stereotypes

Plain Talk Volume 1-Everything you ever and never wanted to know about Racism and Stereotypes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Flunks WP:N and WP:SPAM; no reliable sources; self-promotional. (While self-promotion is not a reason for deletion, the article's other failings are.) THF (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Stonemason nominated me for deletion should be wiped out because I changed some of his edits on the All-White Basketball league. I think that the deletion should be held off for 6 months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaintalk2010 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC) What spam are you talking about. At the very least some promotional items have been removed personally. I just think it's shady that the guy that I'm involved in an edit war with is the guy who nominates this page for deletion. Now that's a conflict of interest. The deletion process is too subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaintalk2010 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not nominate this page for deletion, User: THF did. Get your facts straight. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the closing admin discounted Stonemason's opinion, there are five other editors with good rationales to delete the article. That's enough to show a consensus that the article should be deleted. If you want to build a case for keeping the article, focus on the identified flaws in the article and show where it has received significant coverage in reliable sources.

—C.Fred (talk) 14:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

if the only problem with this article was that it was overly promotional, i would have nominated for keep and probably worked to fix it (i do a lot of small fixups for book/author articles). if the article does stay, i will comment on the "spamminess" on the article talk page. its not relevant here as its not grounds for deletion. it was a throwaway comment essentially in support of its potential future notability. sorry if i sounded too flippant.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. nominator also changed to keep JForget 00:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Arabic units of measurement

Ancient Arabic units of measurement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A search for reference, found little to no support for any of the content of this article. Yes there Ancient Arabic units of measurement, but for most of the units mentioned here no references are found. See example reference in article, what is found has no support for the measurements as documented. The farsakh is the only thing I find close and even that does not match references. Removal on non-referenced content per WP:V would result in a article that no longer meets the expectations of the title. Prod was removed so bringing to AfD Jeepday (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Although the topic is notable for its own article, an unsourced article is dubious, and keeping a demonstrably inaccurate article makes an entire encyclopedia dubious. Looking through the history of this one, it was created back in the "It's none of your damn business where I got this from" days of Wikipedia, and had no source at all until the nominator (Jeepday) located one: ([16]) would be the heart of a good article as to some of the measurements, and if someone wants to attempt a rescue, in which case, move it to userspace until it can be something that doesn't say 2+2=7. The Encyclopedia Britannica used to have an article called "Measures and Weights" that converted units of measure into English and metric equivalents. Rather than a clean up, this one needs to be replaced with something brand new from the rescue factory. Mandsford (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please substantiate "demonstrably incorrect". So far as I can see the highly reliable reference that I have given below covers everything in the article. Hans Adler 18:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deletion of an article is generally interpreted as implying that re-creation of the article is strongly discouraged. That would certainly not be appropriate here. As to the sourcing, we need to take into account the systemic bias against cultures using a non-Latin script. If we search for one specific transcription of a unit, then we are only going to find those occurrences that use exactly the same transcription. By simply searching for "arabic units" in Google Books I found the Encyclopaedia of scientific units, weights, and measures, which appeared with Springer and appears to cover everything that is in the article in a single table. Hans Adler 20:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a reliable source (François Cardarelli, ed. Encyclopaedia of Scientific Units, Weights, and Measures: Their SI Equivalences and Origins (Springer 2003) p77-78) at least for units of length, area, and volume. If someone is willing to replace the existing content with something verifiable-- even to the extent of blanking the page and replacing it with the two links to Google books-- then I'd support a keep. Otherwise, we should put a note up saying "This is totally unreliable and should not be taken seriously by someone consulting an encyclopedia". The first requirement of reference information, even greater than that it should be verifiable, is that it be correct. Mandsford (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can tell nothing needs to be replaced. The present content is backed up by the new reference. Hans Adler 18:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone rewrites it before this AFD closes: incorrect information does not belong in Wikipedia, and the only ways to get rid of an entirely incorrect article are complete rewrites and deletion. We sometimes delete articles for reasons irrelevant to notability (especially through speedy deletion, but not exclusively), so it's not at all uncommon to encounter a situation when there's no problem with recreating an article that was (altogether properly) deleted. I don't see how keeping a mangled article will help the encyclopedia more than deletion will. Nyttend (talk) 03:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Vote changed, see below Why on earth delete if the problem is a lack of referrences? -- Egil (talk) 07:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides that Wikipedia:Verifiability allows for the removal of questionable unreferenced content. Lack of references is one of the symptoms, the problem is that the content of the article cannot be validated; it is extremely likely that none of it is accurate, and the entire article content is fabricated. This article was reviewed by Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles prior to being posted for AfD and no references supporting the article content could be found. The question in this AfD is should the article be stripped to a sinlgle line about farsakh, or should it be completely deleted. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. As a flashback, I remember this article was created by splitting up a far too big article on historical weights and measures, and I'm sure some of the original content was quite questionable. If you have researched this and not being able to verify, then this article has no value. I will thus change my vote to Delete. Egil (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did any of you actually compare the reference with the current content of the article? What does the article say that doesn't follow immediately from the new reference? Hans Adler 18:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. {{trout}} I don't understand why people here are voting for deletion of an article based on speculations that the content may be incorrect, after someone has found a Springer book that backs up the content. Hans Adler 01:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nom voting Keep, thanks to the work of User:Hans Adler who found and added references supporting the article content. When the reference was first posted here it did not open as readable for me, but the reference on the article clearly goes to a book supporitin the content as written (still room to improve as always). My Orginal research was based on the words for the units, which came up mostly empty Hans focused on the subject a search term and found a great reference. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, it seems you originally missed my explanation concerning different transcriptions. I think it's important to keep this issue in mind in order to avoid systemic bias against cultures that use a non-latin script. As it happens, my work didn't consist in more than entering "Arabic units of measurement" in Google books and looking at the first hit. The trout is on the barbecue. Who wants some? Hans Adler 12:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close in that nominator has withdrawn nomination. Changing vote to Keep and praising Hans Adler as well. Mandsford (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Sain ley Berry

Peter Sain ley Berry (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 political candidate who has not held national elected office. He is additionally the editor of some minor specialist journals which do not appear to amount to a claim of notability. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The SDP has several thousand founder Members. Its formation was announced some weeks before the party was formally launched, and people could sign up to the Council for Social Democracy or endorse the Limehouse Declaration before the launch. Peter Sain Ley Berry was not one of the 'Gang of Four' founders of the SDP and isn't mentioned in the academic history of the party (Ivor Crewe and Anthony King, "SDP: The Birth, Life and Death of the Social Democratic Party", Oxford University Press, 1995).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David Soutter

David Soutter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable official of political parties who has not stood for elected office himself. No reliable sources found and indeed there appear only to be passing mentions in a tiny number of newspaper articles. Has been tagged for notability for 18 months or so. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Internet car buying in the UK

Internet car buying in the UK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD (by blanking). PROD concern "No indication of how this might meet notability guidelines. Lacks citations to significant coverage in reliable sources" blue520 14:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and do not wish to see Internet car buying in India, Interent car buying in Chile or Internet car buying in the Sahara Desert any time soon. From an encyclopedia's position, we just don't need articles of this nature.--TrustMeTHROW! 20:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded.Peridon (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still second what he said. Peridon (talk) 17:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
::Thirded.--Prodigy96 (talk) 00:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (WP:NACD) CTJF83 chat 19:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William Croft (linguist)

William Croft (linguist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable BLP of a linguist. The only independent source isn't even about HIM, it's about Greenberg, and only mentions Croft as it relates to Greenberg. That doesn't satisfy the "non-trivial" aspect of our notability policy. The other source is simply a university profile. UnitAnode 14:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then you are granting that the person is notable? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. Until reliable, secondary sources are found to source the claims, I don't grant that he's notable. UnitAnode 13:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EP32

EP32 (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)

Probably non-notable software. Can't find any independent third-party sources to establish notability. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EP128Emu. Psychonaut (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


What about putting the material about EP32 to the Enterprise computer article? Or do you want to delete that article, too? Anyway I think Wiki's concept about deletion is not really objective. Who would publish anything about a less known 80's computer, rather about its emulator? Are the more known computers better, the less known ones worst? And therefore its emulator is less notable? It is not objective. It is normal that google news and google books gives many results about important things of everyday life and about a very specific area doesn't. It doesn't qualify the specific area itself. Enterprise computer and its emulator IS the part of the computer history as well as Commodore and Spectrum. It is true that this area is mostly undocumented but it doesn't establish its notability. If every notable thing were documented, development of science would hardly stop. :D (And what makes me sad is that people who don't know it decide about which articles to delete and Wiki supports them without asking the opinion of an expert.) --Szipucsu (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for paying attention to this! If a consensus should be reached, EP128emu article should also be restored for the same reason mentioned above. --Szipucsu (talk) 10:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Ah Ben

Leroy Ah Ben (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All that I can find in Google is unreliable sites, a profile, and a trivial mention in The Walkley Magazine. All that I can find in Google News is a few news articles by him. I found zero sources in Google Books. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. A deletionist. I love you guys. All I can offer is that he's on TV in Australia every night on an evening news program on SBS which broadcasts nationally, which of course doesn't leave a textual trace on the web because he's a broadcast TV reporter. Why not enjoy yourself and go ahead and delete it. Timbomb (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Duriga

Jim Duriga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All that I can find in Google is 123people.com, monkees101.com which only has one sentence, sites to buy his books, profiles, unreliable sites, and Open Library. All that I can find in Google News is three trivial mentions in a local newspaper. All that I can find in Google Books is books by him. Fails WP:CREATIVE. Joe Chill (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ikitza

Ikitza (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 per WP:CREATIVE and WP:BAND, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. Prod contested by WP:SPA. MuffledThud (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshi Watanabe (musician)

Hiroshi Watanabe (musician) (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)

Entirely unsourced blp (i don't see a link to a primary source website as a reliable source at all) without an assertion of notability even on a video game musician. Part of an extensive walled garden of similiar unsourced blps. Was deprodded by an ip who couldn't demonstrate notability or reliably source it either. Bali ultimate (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry. I never liked that criteria. Just releasing is weak. When you consider the number of "one hit wonders" out there, if you release 2 albums and still can't chart anything, that makes you look even less notable to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that there because the only sources that exist that cover this man are of his crimes, the article fails WP:BLP1E. NW (Talk) 12:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Curry

Edwin Curry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I know the definition of "BLP1E" is disputed, but I believe this article in it's current form does fall under the term. The article covers nothing on this man other than one part of his life, how he got jailed for being a pedophile. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 10:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence was controversial and other examples in the category similarly focus on this part of someone's life. --candle•wicke 10:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:ONEEVENT. It seems to me the only notability (if that should even be the right word here to use) is for this one event. Im perplexed as to how even a merge is appropriate and where this could go as a redirect right now. Therefore I think deletion (In the pages current form) is appropriate as outlined above. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The article is sourced and is indeed notable in that the guy was found guilty of 189 counts of indecent assault and sentenced to only 4 years. For WP:ONEEVENT, are you referring to the sentencing, or to the period during which he was assaulting these children?...there appears to be some lexical ambiguity in your statement. The article does need a bit work, but as it stands, it need not be nominated for deletion. Smallman12q (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, quoting BLP1E, it says "If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category." It seems (to me at this point) that this person's role is indeed substantial and since the names of those he abused are unknown he is very much the centre of this case. I had no idea who the Hinckley, Jr. guy was before I clicked but if the best example of this type of biography is someone who nearly killed someone but failed, well... I don't see how this serial abuser over three decades is any worse less suited for an article? --candle•wicke 13:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) To me I see this as one event that the trial and the period are one in the same, and as such I would belive the article follows to cover the person only in the context of this single event (But i agree this can have ambuigity to it). That is just my opinion of this paticular article. However I do concede under WP:PERP that the person narrowly does satisfy point 3 (But not 1 and 2 in my opinion at least). However thats if it has persistant coverage to be historical which you could probably argue this will. Maybe retitling the article and re writing portions to reflect the trial and not the individual would be more appropriate rather than deletion and in time if there is continual coverage the article could reflect the individual? Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable because he was sentenced to 189 counts of assault" sounds like an arbitrary number to me. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - clearly, obviously notable individual (unfortunately), which passes WP:GNG (several sources), WP:BLP1E (not a single event; sources are all from his recent conviction, but the crimes are not recent and are very many; sources referring to him and his personality also are cited) and WP:PERP (notable crimes). The crimes were notable enough for the sentence to have been further discussed. --Cyclopiatalk 15:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are several reliable sources in the article itself, and the man appears to be a serial child sex offender. The media coverage may be a one off (i.e. at the trial) but the actual offense and claim to notability isn't a BLP1E situation. I guess that's what you meant in your nomination regarding the disputed definition of BLP1E. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:PERPETRATOR. Horrible crimes over many years, and they took place many years ago. Yet the few references for the crime or the criminal are only from a 5 day period. The crimes inspired no societal changes, no new laws, no books or films. Apparently the news media which gave it little coverage did not see it as significant as some Wikipedians do. The crimes may have taken place over a long period, but none was apparently considered notable enough for any coverage until the trial and conviction. Neither the perpetrator nor the victims apparently had any notability outside the crimes. Edison (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Edison said it best. No need to keep this page.--Prodigy96 (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The recent findings by Candlewicke change everything. They also make a very good argument. Since the trial would have been around the time this became public how could sources exist from when it was unknown?--Prodigy96 (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]
It could be argued that "unknown crimes until the trial" equals "one incident." The additions by Candlewicke are preliminary parts of the same trial plus apparently someone beating up the perpetrator after his misdeeds came to be known. The early hearings of a trial are part of the same trial, hence the same event. Getting beaten up is generally not the stuff of which encyclopedias are made. Edison (talk) 01:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a side note I dont think those articles have a problem with BLPE or PERP (Just my thought here though), and are quite different from this article and its concerns that have been raised as has been discussed above. Discussion should also be kept to this article alone and wether it should or shouldnt be deleted. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are differeces...--TrustMeTHROW! 22:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]
  • Delete I think WP:BLP1E still applies. The event, in this case, can be said to be Curry's trial, which appears to be of only immediate interest (I can't imagine anyone taking an interest in this 15 years from now). In response to Wnt above, this guy does not at all compare to Eric Harris/Dylan Klebold and John Wayne Gacy. Harris and Klebold were involved in an event that's unquestionably significant on its own (BLP1E says bios are appropriate for "Individuals notable for well-documented events"). Gacy has had whole books written about him, and attracted far more attention than this guy. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 03:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Keep the events are notable and have been subject to mass media coverage.--LittleGordon 20:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.  Skomorokh  11:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Embers (band)

Embers (band) (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 mentioned on article talk page suggest notability of the actual band. To say nothing of sources mentioned in actual article. Agree that this passes A7 for speedy purposes but seems to fail notability standards for music. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

With the amount of references this article has it should not be deleted. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The references are to Myspace pages, blogs, a reference to one member's participation in an unrelated film, and a review for another band that mentions this band as the opening act without commenting on them. I don't think the references pass muster by a long shot. More than half the references are actually to a film that is related to the band only because the film includes one member of the band (the film itself has nothing to do with the band). If you remove the references to the film, you are left with 13 references: 5 Myspace, 1 blog, one to an unnotable music review site, another to a separate band's web site, and two to the same issue of Decibel, the content of which hasn't been verified by anybody other than the article's author (the Decibel Web site features a review of another band that mentions Embers by name once, in passing). The article failed a CSD nom (the article credibly claims notability now), and while you are right to point out the number of references, quantity certainly doesn't equal quality, at least not in this case. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no legitimate reason cited here for deleting the Wikipedia entry on the band Embers. Embers is real, and the Wikipedia article is factual. The band plays fairly regularly in the San Francisco Bay Area, and tours occasionally in other parts of the country. I have seen their most recent CD listed at one time or another on the Amoeba Records website, Amazon.com, and eBay. The band is listed on music websites devoted to heavy metal, for example at http://www.metal-archives.com/ and semi-permanent autonomous zone http://www.spaz.org/taxonomy/term/240 and Metal Archives http://www.metal-archives.com/review.php?id=172603 and their gigs in their home town of Oakland are listed on Oakland.com, for example http://www.oakland.com/embers-e507901

This is a real band, with real people, recording real CDs and playing in real concerts. There is no legitimate reason to delete the Wikipedia article on Embers, and doing so would do a disservice to Wikipedia users who turn to this site to seek information on the band. —Preceding comment added by Prairie2010 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC) — Prairie2010 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Something being real does not mean that something warrants an article on Wikipedia. See WP:MUSIC. There are clearly defined standards for determining notability on Wikipedia, and they far exceed something being "real." For example, you are a real person, but you do not have an article on Wikipedia about you. There are standards that determine an individual's notability (and preclude an article about you, or me for that matter), just as there are standards that determine a band's notability. The Web sites you list above, in my opinion, do not pass verifiability standards that are required to establish this band's notability, because the only music notability standard that is even being argued in this band's case appears to be press coverage.
I would highly suggest you read the relevant notability standards before throwing out claims like there being "no legitimate reason cited here." My reasons are legitimate and according to the guidelines.
I really hope I'm not coming across like someone with a vendetta against this band, or any band, for that matter. I AfD'd this and am frustrated to see my arguments dismissed out of hand when I actually put in a good amount of time trying to find reliable sources for this article before AfD'ing it. The sources you reference above do not pass verifiability standards, else this article wouldn't have been up for AfD in the first place. Blogs, reviews from anonymous sources and listings for upcoming gigs are not sources that can be used to demonstrate notability. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaand on that note, I'm going to remove myself from this conversation. I've made my case, and I don't want to appear overly engaged in this. Additionally, re-reading my comments above, they may have come across harsher than intended. Was not my intent. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 02:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some less than reliable sources in the article (myspace, blogs, etc.) but there's also San Francisco Bay Guardian, Decibel, Maximum RocknRoll, Political Media Review, Profane Existence and some other very notable and influential punk and underground publications. It's true that not all of them are available online but we're supposed to AGF here. The thing is, pretty much any musical act that adheres to the philosophy of DIY is not going to be mentioned in Rolling Stone or whatever. But that doesn't make them non notable. The fact that the band has appeared and has been mentioned in many of the most important publications dedicated to the topic adds up to notability here.

    So Keep, particularly since this doesn't appear to be a puff-piece or the other extreme, attack article. It's basic information cited to the kind of sources that cover the genre.radek (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • A one-word mention in the tabloid newspaper San Francisco Bay Guardian does not establish notability. A user-generated review page (which doesn't even mention Ember) does not allow Embers to pass Wikipedia:Verifiability.

    I am asking for significant coverage in two reliable sources. As of now, the article contains only unreliable sources (e.g. blogs) or a one word mention in a reliable source.

    I acknowledge that sources do not need to be online. In fact, in many cases, sources cannot be found on the Internet due to the age of the band, in that many publications before the 1980s were not documented online. In this particular case, the band is only five years old. If it is notable, there should be some online coverage about it. The fact that a Google search (with the search term: Embers "Steven DeCaprio") — the band's name and its founder — returns only thirty-eight results is a testament to its lack of a significant following and its lack of coverage in reliable sources, and thus its lack of notability. Notable contemporary bands have much more coverage than this, even if some of the coverage is unreliable. A band of the Information Age that lacks an online presence is very likely non-notable. Cunard (talk) 08:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Uh, I wouldn't call the SF Bay Guardian a "tabloid" - it basically set the standard for the "free alternative newspaper" genre (and is probably more reliable than most "local" non-alternative newspapers). And I think you got it flipped - the longer the band's been around the more likely that online sources are available rather than vice versa ("many publications before the 1980's" may not have been documented online... back in the 1980's ... true .... but have been scanned, uploaded in, etc. since then). Especially true for DIY and punk acts which disseminate themselves through printed zines and such. Also, I think that what needs to be taken into account is the OVERALL sourcing - yes, you can nitpick each source provided but the fact that they come from many different venues adds up to notability here.radek (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wikipedia article for the San Francisco Bay Guardian calls it a tabloid (see the infobox).

    True, the longer the band's been around, the more likely the band will have received coverage in reliable sources. However, those sources may not necessarily be online if they were not scanned. See an example at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Pump.

    Embers (band)'s lack of notability is due to its lack of coverage in reliable sources. One word / one sentence mentions in a few local sources do not provide the depth of coverage required by Wikipedia:GNG. If you, or the other proponents of keeping this article, have independent reliable sources that provide at least several paragraphs of coverage about the band, feel free to link to them. I have been unable to find any. Cunard (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "OVERALL sourcing" point, I don't think it's "nitpicking" to point out that without exception every single source is either a blog, a passing reference, or a link to Myspace (or a Decibel "review"). It's not as if by sheer volume of unreliable, trivial sourcing one achieves notability. I could get an article written about myself on here with about one week's work in "Internet PR" by that standard. Apologies for the vague straw man there but I completely disagree with your point. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They have received positive reviews in Profane Existence and the current issue of Decibel Magazine. It appears no one working on this has read it except for me. The passing reference referred to in Decibel is from a previous issue not the current issues. I have already partially quoted the review on the talk page so please check your facts. They are also former members of Lesser of Two and the drummer collaborated with former members of Filth (band). The San Francisco Bay Guardian is a reliable news source with competent journalism and an editorial review process. As you know wikipedia articles are not reliable so the use of the word "tabloid" is merely a semantic argument. It probably only refers to the layout and manner of distribution, not the editorial process. As it stands both the Decibel review and the S.F. Bay Guardian refer to Embers as peers of Ludicra and Saros (band) both of which are sufficiently notable to have their own entries. This band thus is notable on two grounds: 1. sufficient coverage and 2. former members of notable music groups. javascript:insertTags('noodle 23:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC)',,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
Oh, they also were discussed in the article on Noisecreep.com which is an Aol/Time Warner news site. That's the first citation in the entry. I believe the reviews in Decibel and Profane Existence are more substantial, but these things should be looked at cumulatively relative to the genre of Red and Anarchist Black Metal which is pretty underground by it's nature.noodle 00:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
This strikes me as disingenuous: "they also were discussed in the article on Noisecreep.com". Perhaps also a matter of semantics, but an off-hand reference does not constitute Embers being "discussed." I reviewed that citation. The source is verifiable. The coverage is dedicated to another band, with two brief mentions of Embers. It reads "Along with Oakland's Embers", and then "Opening was Embers' female-fronted ambient black metal mix of despair, keys, and continuous flow while supporting the band's latest album, the self-released 'Memoria In Aeterna.'" I don't know if you are intentionally misrepresenting the nature of the coverage in this debate in the hope that nobody will actually read it, or if you think this actually constitutes coverage -of Embers-, but in my view the latter is certainly not the case. I also have no idea what this means: "As you know wikipedia articles are not reliable so the use of the word "tabloid" is merely a semantic argument." Are you suggesting we allow unreliable sourcing because Wikipedia is unreliable? That's a circular argument if I've ever heard one! (Yes, the last point is a trivial one -- just struck me as an odd argument, heh).
Additionally, as the article's author it is generally assumed you are in favor of it not being deleted :). Not that you don't get to vote, I just want to make sure it's clear that your involvement is not independent of bias. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two bands you list above are not notable. I note that the band we are currently debating and one of the two bands you list above have been created by the same user.

    Lesser of Two contains references that are analogous to those in this article — none of these references are reliable sources that provide significant coverage about Lesser of Two. Having done a Google News Archive search about Lesser Than Two, I am unable to find any coverage in reliable sources. I note that this band is also founded by Steven DeCaprio, who is likewise non-notable per this Google News Archive search, which returns no relevant results.

    Filth (band) currently contains no references and does not appear to be notable per this Google News Archive search.

    Yes, the band has been "mentioned" in several local publications; these mentions are always present in a laundry list of other bands, some of which are notable, most of which are not. There is no indication that Embers (band) passes Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles.

    Addendum: I note that your account has 21 edits, the last of which made on January 8, 2010, before you posted to this AfD. As you seem to be familiar with Wikipedia guidelines, such a WP:MUSIC, do you have another account on Wikipedia? And how did you find out about this discussion? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re the band "Filth" - it's true that that article is unsourced but actually that band is pretty legendary, with members of the band being basically associated in some way with most punk music that came out of Northern California (and beyond) during the 90's (and later). The reason your search is not finding anything is simply because the word "Filth" is such a common word (as is the phrase "Lesser of Two" and the word "Embers") so any relevant hits are likely to drown in a sea of unrelated noise. But here is one for Filth: [22]radek (talk) 05:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You brought it up (here and at the other AfD). And you're missing the main point - not whether the single sfweekly is sufficient to establish notability or not. Rather that checking Google for "Filth band East-bay" is not going to be a very good gauge of notability here because the word "Filth" - like the phrase "Lesser of Two" and the word "Embers" (and this is why this is in fact on topic) - is such a common word.radek (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I discussed the lack of notability of a band with which Embers performed because Black Kronstadt (talk · contribs) attempted to use it to bolster the notability of Embers.

    My searches for sources (1. Filth band "East Bay" ; 2. "Lesser of Two" band Decaprio ; 3. Embers "Steven DeCaprio") are apt queries for bands with such generic names. If you disagree with this mode of searching for sources, please provide better search terms. Cunard (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • First of all, I'm here because the article in question appeared in the access logs of my website as a referring page. I don't make many edits here, since my knowledge of English language is far from perfect. I also have accounts in Russian and Spanish Wikipedias (though not very active too). No wonder that I'm familiar with the criteria of notability and reliability of sources, because I've already had a big discussion about it before (see the talk about the inclusion of RABM section into Black metal article). As for Filth, at a first glance they seem notable to me, because they have released a lot of albums on significant indie labels (Lookout Rec., Springman Rec., and especially Alternative Tentacles - all these labels have a relatively long history and a number of notable bands). Now let's discuss the notability of Lesser of Two, where it's appropriate. Black Kronstadt (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decibel review and Embers

I think the Decibel Magazine coverage for Embers (band) may have been inadvertently misrepresented. The reference is a review in Decibel from the current issue, not an old blog which was never cited as a reference. This is the full quote from the current Decibel review:

"EMBERS Embers

The Bay Area just can't stop producing good bands. Embers make complete sense in the context of local peers like Ludicra and Saros. They've got punk, black metal, street grit and that special Bay Area brand of melancholy [via lovely viola]. Bands like this you hold onto for a while. www.myspace.com/embers666"

(There is a photo of the cover of their C.D. next to the review.)noodle 00:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)

Here is a link to a page on Decibel's Web site which lists all of the reviews present in the March, 2010 issue: Decibel March reviews. I do not know what the content you are quoting above actually is, but it is not something Decibel considers to be a "review." Nor do I believe it constitutes non-trivial coverage, particularly when one considers that this is the only source that, in my view, -clearly- passes verifiability standards. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is on page 88 in issues number 65. I don't know what else I can say to convince you. I don't have a scanner handy. Can someone with a scanner please go to the news stand. Decibel is not an online magazine. Just because Decibel does not list every review they have does not mean its not there. I am rather frustrated with the lack of trust here. Also, Profane Existence Magazine is just as reliable as any other news source. Why do you consider Decibel magazine reliable and not, MRR, Profane Existence, SF Bay Guardian, etc.? Also, no one has spoken to the second element of "former members of other notable music groups". Decibel magazine coverage is just one of a number of reasons to keep this article. noodle 01:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Look, put yourself in my shoes. Who do I trust more to tell me what reviews are in Decibel magazine: Decibel.com's list of reviews in Decibel Magazine or "Noodlesteve"? My issue with most of the other coverage (and, really, the Decibel coverage) is its trivial nature. The SFBG coverage seems lacking in credibility to me. Also, read the notability inheritance standard: "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles." Embers needs to be an ensemble with "independently notable musicians." The latter point, the one you think applies to the article, is a point that applies to articles about individual musicians. That is not a reason to keep the article. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By way of illustrative example of the last point there, Bono is notable as a member of U2. The New Pornographers, pre-fame, could have been notable because of their incorporation of several notable Canadian musicians. Keanu Reeves' band does not automatically become notable and worthy of an article because Keanu Reeves is a member (although, of course, that Keanu Reeves has a band is so hilarious that the band gets significant non-trivial coverage and becomes notable). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I were in your shoes I would realize that Decibel's list of reviews may not be exhaustive and that if I misrepresented the facts I would get banned from wikipedia. At the very least it's a net sum zero game, but you have taken the position of concluding the review doesn't exist when in fact it does. This is irresponsible, and as such you are spreading misinformation. On your other points I believe we agree on the facts, but disagree on our conclusions. We can let the consensus unfold, but I want this to be an informed discussion.
Also, if Bono formed another band I'm sure you would agree it was notable. Well, the founding members of this band were involved in two notable music groups Lesser of Two and Fileds of Shit featuring two members of Filth (band). I guess my point is that we should look at the totality of the circumstances because every music group is different, and standards of notability, no matter how exhaustively defined, are still subjective. I hope you don't believe an artist must be famous in order to be notable because these musical groups are certainly not household names like Bono. javascript:insertTags('noodle 01:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)',,)
Thank you for posting the text of the Decibel review: (1) The Bay Area just can't stop producing good bands. (2) Embers make complete sense in the context of local peers like Ludicra and Saros. (3) hey've got punk, black metal, street grit and that special Bay Area brand of melancholy [via lovely viola]. (4) Bands like this you hold onto for a while. This is trivial coverage that contains no substance. Sentence #1 does not tell me anything about the band; it is a generalization about The Bay Area. Neither does sentence #2 which compares the band to two other non-notable local bands. Sentence #3 is the only useful sentence and contains information about the genre. Sentence #4 also provides no context; how do "[b]ands like this hold [on] for a while? The lack of context in this source disqualifies it from being a possible factor of establishing notability.

A band does not inherit notability from non-notable members of marginally notable bands; see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited. Cunard (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Description of Sources by AfD Nominator (Keep that in mind when reading, I'm not wholly independent)

I'm going to go batty and just do an itemized list of what the sources in the article actually are, because I think people are reading certain names in the sourcing and going "oh, well that sounds reliable." Listing by reference number:

  • 1. Noisecreep. This is a review of another band's show that mentions that Embers opened, and then has one sentence which describes Embers' style. That sums it up.
  • 2. SFBG. Lengthy article that mentions Embers in a list of bands that include women. No actual coverage of Embers, just a mention in a list.
  • 3. MMR. This is a reference about another band. It is not about Embers.
  • 4-9. References discussing totally unrelated to band activity by one member. Said member is not notable, nor are most of the references actually directly about this member. Again, this reference is not about the band, it attempts to establish the notability of one member of the band, and in my view does not.
  • 10-12. See above, same deal.
  • 13-15. See above, same deal.
  • 16, 19. The controversial Decibel reference.
  • 17. Link to unreliable source.
  • 18. Profane Existence. Reviews are submitted by subscribers to the publication. Conclude what you will.

There, I've now gone insane over this AfD. If you're still reading this far, your tolerance for debate is...very well-suited to Wikipedia, go check out WP:ANI, thx. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I created the page I'm not wholly independent either. Also, since we updated the page simultaneously then I guess we're both going batty. I will give my perspective on the aforementioned.
  • 1. Noisecreep. This is an interview with a band that played a show with Embers and they talk about Embers music and why the band decided to play with Embers. Embers is not the sole focus of the article, but there is more than one sentence on them. Three to be precise.
  • 2. SFBG. Embers is mentioned as one of 6 metal bands in the SF Bay Area Featuring women. The article states this is a higher number than other cities, and the existence of Embers is one of a handful of bands supporting that conclusion.
  • 3. MRR. you forgot to mention that the "other band" was Lesser of Two a three piece with two of the three founding members of Embers that has passed notability standards for wikipedia and that Embers is often referred to as ex members of Lesser of Two.
  • 4-15. political media review, imdb, SF Bay Guardian (again, different article), law.com/the Recorder, etc. various reliable publications establishing the political activities of the band establishing their political activism. This is relevant to their status as a Red and Anarchist Black Metal band.
  • 16., 19. The Decibel Review is quoted above. It's only controversial if you want it to be.
  • 17. Heathen Harvest is a webzine. It's just as reliable as a print source. It is not a blog and has Editorial control. There is even an "editor's note" at the bottom of the review showing that submissions are subject to an editorial process. (hmm. you don't like printed sources because they are hard to verify online, but now online magazines are unreliable without explanation.)
  • 18. Profane Existence. Reviews are submitted by staff. They do accept music from bands for possible review, but the reviews are controlled by staff. Perhaps you were confused by the "Review Submissions" box. Read a little further and it becomes clear. There is no access to upload content. Profane Existence is a nationally known zine. Your assertions on P.E. are false. I assume you are not a reader of this magazine. noodle 02:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
I wrote a lengthy response to Noodle's thoughts above and have decided to remove most of it. We're going in circles. Noodle and I should both detach ourselves from this AfD at this point, methinks. We're just gumming up the works with endless banter, and I think the above two reference lists are probably the closest either of us will come to a summation.
Only thing I will leave in is this: Obviously, I disagree with your assessment that I'm saying that "online magazines are unreliable without explanation," and also disagree with "I don't like printed sources because they are hard to verify online." The first is an absurd blanket statement and I quite clearly never said anything like that, and the second isn't actually true. It's actually very easy to verify printed sources online -- particularly current issues.
  • Although I could have phrased the comment to be less of a blanket statement my point was that I thought it was contradictory for you to deny the existence of the Decibel article (see: WP:AGF), and then without any justification call the webzine Heathen Harvest unreliable. I will also take issue with your assertion earlier that my arguments have been disingenuous. So far you have made three verifiably false statements. First, that the Decibel review didn't exist., second, that the Noisecreep article only had one sentence on Embers (in fact three), and that Profane Existence allows reviews by subscribers. All this along with your attack on Heathen Harvest makes your arguments suspect. To be fair I assume that these were merely oversights on your part, but to call me disingenuous is not in keeping with WP:AGF. So far I have gone far beyond the bulk of most band entries in similar genres and if we follow Ginsengbomb and Cunard's logic to it's ultimate conclusion then we should remove nearly every underground metal band on wikipedia. Most of these bands rely on word of mouth so the fact that any sources exist at all is rather unusual. I see that Cunard is now attacking the notability of Ludicra, Saros (band) (despite both having wikipedia entries), and has started a deletion discussion on Lesser of Two. I should also note the only person involved in WP:METAL is ScarTissueBloodBlister and they voted to keep. noodle 02:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
  • Even if the reviews you listed above were considered reliable, they are not sufficient because one (or two or three) sentence(s) does not pass the "significant coverage" required by Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    So far I have gone far beyond the bulk of most band entries in similar genres and if we follow Ginsengbomb and Cunard's logic to it's ultimate conclusion then we should remove nearly every underground metal band on wikipedia. Most of these bands rely on word of mouth so the fact that any sources exist at all is rather unusual. You are correct. Underground bands which lack coverage in reliable sources cannot be included in Wikipedia because they fail Wikipedia's core policy of Wikipedia:Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 07:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cunard, your statement that WP:GNG requires "several paragraphs" is incorrect. The guidelines state that you need "more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." As such a band spontaneously discussing Embers in their own interview is sufficient. I do however appreciate you honesty regarding your tendency towards "underground bands". I'm sure many on wikipedia feel that having more comprehensive music content than you do would be in wikipedia's best interest as a useful resource. I agree that coverage and reliability are important, but I believe the coverage should be within the context of the genre, not some huge breakthrough into mainstream media. I believe both our perspectives fall within a gray area the guidelines don't specifically address (hence AfD). noodle 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)

Ginsengbomb, what is your problem? You said in a post above that "I'm going to remove myself from this conversation. I've made my case, and I don't want to appear overly engaged in this." I count SEVEN (7) posts you've made subsequent to your promise. You not only "appear overly engaged;" you are demonstrating an obsession with this topic that (a) is not healthy, and (b) destroys such minimal credibility as could be attributed to your little vendetta. Be true to your word, and give it a rest, already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.245.179.202 (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ginsengbomb has policy-based arguments that are valuable additions to the debate. I do not see that in the other participants of the debate. Whilst I do not see the need for Gingsengbomb to abstain from further participation in this debate, the aforementioned user does not wish to get in debates where the participants with the opposing viewpoint engage in unfounded, abrasive accusations of bad faith.

    Instead of discussing the motives of those supporting deletion, please provide examples of reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject. Bad faith accusations will not allow the article to be retained. Sources will improve the arguments of those voting "keep" and will enable the article to be retained. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 23:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser of Two

O.K. so now this AfD has spilled over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lesser of Two. I don't know how I feel about this move by Cunard. Especially since Cunard was not part of the Lesser of Two editing process and has undercut WikHead's previous tag which was much less drastic than AfD. Is this really appropriate? noodle 03:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs) [reply]

Well, it seems more like a way of collaterally attacking the Embers article by attacking the notability of associated articles. I see that you are now arguing that Nikt Nic Nie Wie is not a notable label and that Maximumrocknroll, HeartattaCk, Flipside Magazine, and so on are not reliable publications. It just seems like a downward spiral. noodle 05:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
If your interested in keeping this article (I think of only one reason why this much effort has been spent in it's defence) you should stop attacking people and concentrate on improving the artiucle duffbeerforme (talk) 14:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The wikipedia notability guidlines, WP:FAILN state, "If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself" Since Cunard never participated in the process of editing either article and proposed AfD of Lesser of Two immediately upon discovering its existence it seems that he is violating this guidline. This is different from the Embers AfD because Ginsengbomb had been involved in the Talk:Embers_(band) from the beginning. It appears that Ginsenbomb followed the guidlines in regard to Embers but Cunard did not in regard to Lesser of Two. Cunard should have done research, made suggestion, and given me a reasonable time to do research before doing the AfD of Lesser of Two. That is my only point. As it stands Cunard only began researching after the AfD which is more competetive than collaborative. Now I am involved in two AfDs while both pages are only two weeks old and addmitadly need some work which is also on my shoulders. This is a legitimate point of process not a personel attack. javascript:insertTags('noodle 18:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)',,) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodlesteve (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. (good work by Ginsengbomb). 6 refs to say one member was in an unrelated documentary? 3 to say another was in an unrelated project? 3 links to an unrelated organisations website to say a member is involved? Let's overload an article with references to make a band look significant. As for being "related to 2 independently notable bands", Lesser of Two is of questionable notability and Filth has no Embers members. Not good enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Embers as the references are more than sufficient. gidonb (talk) 19:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria #6 WP:BAND

I have added numberous references and links to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lesser_of_Two. Please take them into consideration when considering criteria #6 of WP:BAND. Embers is in many ways a continuation of Lesser of Two under a different name adding more musicians including Buchanan who was in Fields of Shit with two members of Filth (band). The application of the term "ensemble" in this context is difficult to apply. Lesser of Two had numerous changes in line-up with Nelson and DeCaprio as the only consistent members. Is an ensemble the project or the people in the project? I would have merged the articles, but that would have interfered with it's readability due to the change in music styles as well as the fact that members of Lesser of Two who were less consistent nonetheless went onto play in other note worty groups such as Ballast, Look Back and Laugh, and Pleasant Valley.

Also these are the links to the not so "infamous" Decibel review: File:Decibel.Embers.Review.jpg and File:Decibel.Embers.Cover.JPG javascript:insertTags('noodle 20:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)',,)

Addendum Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lesser_of_Two has ended in a decision to Keep. Given the context Embers should pass under criteria #6 as well as criteria #1 of WP:BAND any further improvements can be made with proper editing and research. Also, since Embers is a current active band there is no doubt that any grey area regarding a threshold of said criterea will be passed as Embers continues to tour and release new music. noodle 07:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Noodle 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 keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Visual IRC

Visual IRC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. So, I looked for sources. I found a couple hits on Google Books! Don't get too excited, they all look like this: "Visual IRC is a program for communicating in chat rooms", or a URL where you can download it. I was unable to locate non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources which would suggest notability of this software application. JBsupreme (talk) 08:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems to be an older client, popular in the 1990s. It's surely mentioned in a dozen books indexed by google, but coverage is hard to ascertain because there's not even limited preview for the old ones, and in the newer one it's only mentioned in lists. This 2001 book includes in the short list of popular clients back then, together with mIRC and PIRCH. As for the links above by Victor Falk, they are all in lists of similar software or download pages. There's a fairly brief review here (one of the publications of internet.com), also included in a 2000 round-up in the Polish PC World [28] (you have more luck if you search for the "virc" acronym). Pcap ping 10:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I got myself a copy of Charalabidis's book, which is good for ancient stuff like this, and it's covered in a page of text, no screenshot: Charalabidis, Alex (1999). "Windows IRC Clients: Visual IRC". The Book of IRC: The Ultimate Guide to Internet Relay Chat. No Starch Press. pp. 37–38. ISBN 1-886411-29-8. Pcap ping 19:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 02:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chako Abeno

Chako Abeno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. This is a non-notable and unsourced WP:BLP article. I searched Google News Archive and found 1 relevant match, which was a passing one-liner mention from activeanime.com. That's it. JBsupreme (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • As creator or co-creator of a more than one notable manga, she would on the face of it pass WP:CREATIVE. Since this information was already present when this AfD was proposed, wouldn't attempting to find sources per WP:BEFORE been the better route? But in any case, beyond that additional sourcing has been added, making this a keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eastman, Quasirandom, and http://www.google.com/cse?cx=009114923999563836576%3A1eorkzz2gp4&q=%22Chako+Abeno%22 --Gwern (contribs) 17:10 31 January 2010 (GMT)
    • Gwern, what is this custom search that you are citing? It says "Wikipedia RSs for manga and anime" but I am seeing tons of blogs? I am intrigued. JBsupreme (talk) 17:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Welcome to 21st century, where evil vetted RS critics not only review manga on their Reliable Source manga/anime/comics websites but also from their very own personal blog. Saying that those critics are only experts when they write reviews in their RS websites and cease to be experts when they write reviews in their blog would be utter bullshit. From Wikipedia editors point of view this is hellish to use because the dogmatic blog = not RS restriction. --KrebMarkt 18:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What Kreb said. With a few exceptions, all the blogs being pulled up are either on the Wikiproject's list of online RSs, were cited in the recent discussions about a large network of allied reviewers who publish in said RSs, or are just showing up in the results because they haven't been filtered out. (The CSE has a large whitelist, and blacklist, but everything else is on a 'greylist' - it shows up if it scores high enough anyway.) If any of them are particularly bad and should never show up for any query, feel free to point them out to me. I cleaned up several of the Chako Abeno pages, but I didn't clean past page ~5 of results. --Gwern (contribs) 18:42 1 February 2010 (GMT)
  • Keep Per above, and references from all the notable manga she has worked on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reliable sources more than sufficient to pass the relevant notability bar, as demonstrated by Eastmain and Quasirandom. The existence of systemic bias is not an argument for deletion. Rebecca (talk) 15:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The body of work makes them notable. Dream Focus 20:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are reliable sources. - 23:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Popov

Konstantin Popov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There does not appear to be enough substance here to support a biographical article. He made the news only within the last few days because of his killing. However, there has been been no biographical coverage of this individual prior to this single event, and he was even described as a "little-known 47-year-old journalist who specialized in writing about economics" in one of the recent news articles about his death. Wikipedia:Notability says "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability." Dominic·t 08:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. JForget 02:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cornish American

Cornish American (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essentially this is a WP:FRINGE/WP:FORK for Cornish nationalism (created by somebody of that political persuasion). No evidence that such an article is WP:Notable and its contents consists of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Nor is there any evidence that people from one county in England have especially high numbers of people in America, as to be worthy of an article. No other Encyclopedia in the world includes such an article. Delete as FORK political activism on the part of Joowww. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Cornish identity is stronger than that of, say, East Sussex. Cornwall was once a Celtic nation with its own language, and "Cornish" can be an ethnic or linguistic group rather than just a county of origin. Emigrants from Cornwall to the United States or Australia would often have been miners in Cornwall seeking work as miners, and likely in some cases to settle in mining communities with other Cornish miners. The fact that Cornish nationalism exists, while Yorkshire nationalism does not, suggests that some Americans of Cornish descent may identify as Cornish-American rather than as English-American or British-American. — Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no native speakers of Cornish in Cornwall, let alone in the United States; the last native speaker died in the 1700s, before the United States existed. Also Cornwall was never a country but rather Dumnonnia was (as was Northumbria, Gwynedd, Clwyd and Gwent). But this is all besides the point "Cornish American" is itself WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as a concept, there is no presentation of evidence that "Cornish American" is a notable concept to be included in an Encyclopedia. There is no evidence that any of the examples listed in the article regarded themselves as "Cornish Americans". The concept is as OR as Gwynedd American or Northumbrian American. - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the suggestion that "Cornish American" is WP:OR. There is objective evidence for the use of the term, such as the Cornish American Heritage Society at http://www.cousinjack.org/ , and other Cornish groups in the United States at http://www.pacornish.org/ http://milwaukeecornish.homestead.com/ http://www.califcornishcousins.org/ The Library of Congress catalog http://catalog.loc.gov has a listing for Cornish American, a serial in Grand Rapids, Mich. first published in 1982. As for linguistic differences between Cornish people and those in other parts of England, see West Country dialects. For more on Cornwall as an independent country, see Kingdom of Cornwall and Dumnonia. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 10:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no doubt that some people in the US highlight their Cornish roots, and that some of them have set up websites about it, but it's much less clear whether the phrase "Cornish American" is commonly used, and whether the concept of a "Cornish American" is at all notable. And, for info, you can buy t-shirts that say "Yorkshire American". --Nickhh (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can also buy t-shirts that say "I shot JR". And your point is? --Joowwww (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, humour? Although there was a small serious point underneath it, ie that the verifiable existence of a phrase or term does not of itself mean it needs a Wikipedia page. --Nickhh (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not about counties or ancient kingdoms, it is about the modern-day ethnicity. --Joowwww (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably the modern concept of Cornish ethnicity though is derived very much from the place, and its history, otherwise it's wholly random and invented? And that's the point that people are disputing - what makes Cornwall as an area of England and the UK, and its people, any different from other historical and contemporary areas in the country, all of which had, and to varying degrees still have, a distinctive regional identity? I'm not saying that's not the case, but it needs to be demonstrated substantively, and with reference to proper sources. In this case, we need reliable and serious evidence of the concept of "Cornish Americans". --Nickhh (talk) 01:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Cornish were considered to be a separate people from the English for centuries, until around the 17th century. There are people in Cornwall who still do. Yorkshirians weren't and don't. That's the difference. --Joowwww (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, as I said then. --Nickhh (talk) 13:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the evidence provided (although not other WP pages per se - the Kingdom of Cornwall page in particular looks pretty woefully sourced for a lot of its assertions) would suggest that there is more leeway for the concept of "Cornish American" than there is for "Mercian American", or "Berkshire American", but at the same time it is not an officially accepted ethnic definition in the US like say "Irish American" is - Americans with family origins in Cornwall would be "English Americans" in US census categories, whether they liked it or not. Equally some of the sites pointed to above are of course self-published, and while they provide evidence of the existence of Cornish culture and self-identifying Cornish people in the US - and possibly the occasional use of the actual term "Cornish American" - they do not provide evidence of its notability. Are there any serious, reliable sources that use the term "Cornish American" and apply it to individuals? Beyond that, even if the page is kept, as noted on the article talk page, the page has problems. For example there's a real issue in respect of some of the people who have been listed as Cornish Americans, when there's zero evidence that they or anyone else describe themselves as such.--Nickhh (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Botev Vratsa Forever

Botev Vratsa Forever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fan club with 60 members and no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 06:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viscendo

Viscendo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Made-up word, obvious vehicle for WP:ARTSPAM of the company "Viscendo LLC," founded by Jody Basye. Borders (closely) on db-g11 as blatant advertising. User:Jodybasye contested my PROD.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with nominator, it is obvious spam for the company. Also probable conflict of interest given article creator's name is same as company domain registrant. Original speedy deletion tagging was correct in my opinion. -84user (talk) 11:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Resistance is futile! Mailer Diablo 01:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonfable

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. JForget 02:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Crust (Avril Lavigne album)

Pink Crust (Avril Lavigne album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is of unverifiable nature, based on unreliable conjecture citing no sources, though a Google search results in unreliable sources using the possible-hoax name "Pink Crust". Possible disparagement toward artist. Correct, updated, and verified information on the fourth studio album can be found on the Avril Lavigne article. Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks like a hoax, at least according to The Boston Phoenix: "several news sources, among them Billboard, have reported that [Avril's] upcoming album will be titled Pink Crust. If you're thinking that that's just a little too gross to be true. . .you're correct. As near as I can figure, that title was posted as a joke on an Avril Lavigne fan site, and credulous publications reported it as fact." If it's not a hoax, it still violates WP:CRYSTAL, as no reliable sources confirm a track listing or release date.  Gongshow Talk 06:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MechQuest

AfDs for this article:
MechQuest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seemingly non-notable video game. Arguably its notability should be discussed here, rather than edit warred over the redirect to the company, which itself may be deleted soon. Pcap ping 05:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

609th Air Communications Squadron

609th Air Communications Squadron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This squadron, performing a ground combat service support function, is not notable. Any relevant material can either be placed at Shaw Air Force Base or 20th Fighter Wing. This nomination is in line with previously determined community consensus over separate non-combat ground forces' companies (a unit at the same level). See eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/101st Chemical Company (United States) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/722nd Ordnance Company (United States). Buckshot06 (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Geschichte (talk) 05:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GoldGamer

GoldGamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website lacking GHits of substance and with zero GNEWS. Article lacks references. Appears to fail WP:WEB. ttonyb (talk) 04:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ezhavathy

Ezhavathy (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)

Pure hoax. POV pushing and vandalism about an non-existent community. Ezhavahy is just an alternative name of Ezhava, a Dalit caste.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zaheer Mrad

Zaheer Mrad (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 player may exist, but no source to support it. Match Report of AFC Cup 2007 & 08 can't find him. Matthew_hk tc 04:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The case may hold on and focused on whatever the league is fully-pro and/or he may/may not passed the GNG. If he played at AFC Cup, for sure he is notable. Matthew_hk tc 20:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 7 February 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) 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence to suggest that the player passes either ATHLETE or more importantly the general notability guidelines. -- BigDom 08:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't think it matters whether he played in the AFC Cup or AFC Champions League. The AFC Cup is not a fully-professional competition. At present, the entrants are generally from countries whose leagues don't meet the eligibility criteria for the AFC Champions League - one of these criteria is that the top-flight league is fully professional. As there aren't any Lebanese teams in this competition, we can assume the league is not fully-pro. What's more, the AFC Champions League has only been applying these criteria since 2009 (I think) so we can't count it as a fully professional competition until after then. Bottom line is, for me he fails WP:ATHLETE. Bettia (talk) 12:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1625 Sheridan Road (Wilmette)

1625 Sheridan Road (Wilmette) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable building, no evidence of notability for design or history. Acroterion (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also 1616 Sheridan Road (Wilmette) and 1500 Sheridan Road (Wilmette). Same issues. Acroterion (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia, SecretName101. This is your first article, and I'm presuming that you've written about something that you're familiar with. However, I hope that you will agree that it wouldn't be practical if we had an article about every five story building in the world. We have to set limits on articles, based upon whether something is notable enough that it gets attention outside the local area. As the saying goes, "Everything gets published on Wikipedia, but not everything gets to stay on Wikipedia." Mandsford (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the book you're referencing give any indication of something unique about this building (and 1500?). If so, you should include that in the article. What you want to do is to explain why this building is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia (and personal liking isn't enough: it must be historic or have a historic event associated with it, or be notable on the basis of its design). Who was the architect? Acroterion (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kae's File Manager

AfDs for this article:
Kae's File Manager (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zaroo independent sources for this, hic. Pcap ping 03:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Karam

Michael Karam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. Seems the editor is his son and un sourced /no reliable source to support the notability. Matthew_hk tc 03:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google hit saw there is a real person and real book, but don't know fails WP:AUTHOR or not. Matthew_hk tc 03:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think he makes it as notable. The books are from a real publisher, not self-published. According to the blurb at Amazon, his wine book was reviewed by The New Statesman and The Daily Star, and was praised by the author of Sotheby's Wine Encyclopaedia. Authors in this genre are probably never going to make the New York Times, but he seems notable enough. --MelanieN (talk) 00:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Joice

Ronnie Joice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He's a minor DJ, a former tambourine player in a minor band, and a 'friend to the stars', but he doesn't seem to be notable. Some IP editors have left notes on the talk page calling for deletion. He's got a tiny amount of coverage, e.g. [33]. I couldn't find what amounts to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, he's mostly the subject of informal blog and twitter chat. Fences&Windows 03:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is a popular discussion. Someone? Anyone? Fences&Windows 00:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atmospheric rock

AfDs for this article:
Atmospheric rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Improperly "citing" a single album as evidence for a genre's existence does not a legitimate genre make. C1k3 (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. I filled in the stub from a redlink, if i remember right. The example is just an example, of course, but Google reveals a fair amount of usage of the term as a genre by bands, review sites, online stores, etc. This article, Post Rock 101, seems to recognize it as a subgenre alongside art rock and math rock. I'm not sure exactly how much sourcing would meet the threshold of notability, but if enough can't be found, all the articles linking to this one need to be adjusted too, at least. —Piet Delport (talk) 2010-01-31 05:35
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No arguments to keep - treating as an uncontested PROD Kevin (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred George Al-Babilly

Alfred George Al-Babilly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All that I can find in Google is profiles, sites about unrelated people, wikis, Ebay, Flickr, and videos. I found zero sources in Google News and Google Books. The article is unreferenced. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to this profile he has collaborated with BBC and Jordanian TV. Unfortunately, I can't find out more about him. --Vejvančický (talk) 10:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge and redirect. Jayjg (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Red and Blue (EP)

Red and Blue (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is an EP by Stefani Germanotta, recorded a couple years before she found fame (pardon the pun) as Lady Gaga. The EP was apparently not released—the article claims a "handful of copies were sold at New York area shows"—and the only mentions I'm seeing for this are in fansites/forums, torrent links, etc. I can not find significant coverage in independent reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow Talk 02:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

note: I merged info already feeling that it is relevant no matter how this discussion goes. If no kept, I believe the redirect is appropriate. J04n(talk page) 21:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 02:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smuxi

Smuxi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been tagged as needing sources for a long time and none have been presented even after extensive editing. Miami33139 (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 04:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • [35] and [36] have been in the article since the day after you requested sources ("since last November" is a long time?), and are independent, reliable, and substantive. What are your objections to them? —Korath (Talk) 04:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We have to be grateful he didn't prod it, as he did with klibc. Pcap ping 17:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The edit summary that replaced the notability tag said "(Don't agree tuxradar and toms hardware convey notability. Both of those are giant indiscriminate lists containing mass amounts of products. It doesn't equate significant coverage)" Miami33139 (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I saw Crossmr's edit summary, yes. I was hoping you had objections of your own, because his doesn't hold water. The Tuxradar source reviews only one IRC client, and the only other product reviewed that's even close is Gwibber, a microblogging client. Tom's Hardware reviews seven IRC clients, of 30 products total. Literally hundreds of IRC clients have been released; reviewing one, or seven, can't reasonably be considered indiscriminate. As for the complaint that they review "mass amounts of products", if anything, it adds to the sources' reliability. Keep. —Korath (Talk) 07:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, even if somewhat weakly. Covered in Tom's Hardware, at more length in TuxRadar, which is an online publication owned by Linux Format, and also in the print issue of that magazine [37]. All of these sources were present in the article at the time of nomination. Granted, being reviewed in an article on more obscure apps (TuxRadar) is surely not an indication of popularity or importance. I find it ironic, but not surprising however, that the hardcore deletionists when presented with arguments that something is important, immediately argue that notability is all that matters, and when presented with significant coverage in WP:RS, they argue that the topic is simply not notable (as in popular or important) because it is discussed at some length among other not well-known topics. Besides, if the round-up in Tom's Hardware was as indiscriminate as some say, we'd be able to reference any IRC software on this site from it, including the whole Comparison of IRC clients. Clearly that's not the case given the number of IRC clients that got deleted. Pcap ping 03:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above, coverage in Tom's Hardware and elsewhere sufficient to prove notability. Dream Focus 13:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climm

Climm (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 software client does not present any sources that show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 02:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enhanced Programmable ircII Client

Enhanced Programmable ircII Client (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Well, at least I've heard of this one, it has that going for it. I searched Google News Archives and Google Books, with no success at finding substantial coverage from reliable third party publications. I tried queries "Enhanced Programmable ircII Client" and "EPIC +IRC". JBsupreme (talk) 02:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep Passes WP:Prof (WP:NACD) CTJF83 chat 20:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Harasim

Linda Harasim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Typical academic CV - written articles, edited and contributed to multi-author books. Doesn'tseem particularly notable. Scott Mac (Doc) 01:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand a word of what you've said? What's a GS cite? Yes I researched this. Please indicate why she's notable?--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not part of an editor's duties to explain Wikipedia's WP:Prof policy to people who can read it for themselves. Advice often given to newcomers to a topic is to lurk around for a while to learn the conventions that prevail before jumping in as an editor. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Notability guidelines are not policies there are guidelines. They tell people "what usually tends to happen on AfD", they in no sense disctate what ought to happen. There is no need for anyone here to pay the blindest bit of attention to them. I don't. I use my own judgement.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She means the citation counts reported by a Google scholar search. These numbers are a (not very good, but easily measured) way of quantifying the impact a scholar's work has had on other scholars, and in this case they are well above what has usually been considered here to be at the passing level for WP:PROF #1. For instance, over 1200 other published academic works have cited her book Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online in some way or another. No doubt many of these citations are trivial passing mentions but very likely not all of them are. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn not indicate notability. I'm not sure you've indicated anything remarkable here. Most accademics in this field get called as witnesses, I imagine. None of these article give her more than a passing mention, in the same way they'd mention a policy inspector who investigated a case.--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is this some strange new meaning of the word "none" with which I'm unfamiliar? My comment above called out two specific articles for which the coverage of her is clearly more than a passing mention. As for "the article does not indicate notability": we are not supposed to say things like "She fulfils the Wikipedia standards for academic notability by virtue of her high citation count and h-index." within the text of an article; see WP:SELFREF. There is a paragraph discussing her research accomplishments; you are expected to deduce for yourself that these are the things she is considered notable for. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two of those works she edited, the other she co-authored - these are very typical things for an accademic to do. Even most junior lecturers do this type of thing. There is nothing remarkable here.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could probably make a good argument for deleting 95% of the least notable BLPs. *** Crotalus *** 14:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Widely published academic; David Eppstein's sources clearly demonstrate notability. Rebecca (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no evidence that this person is more notable than the average tenured college professor. Consequently, I see no reason to keep around an underutilized, underwatched BLP that is a vandalism and liability magnet. *** Crotalus *** 17:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is like arguing against articles on movie actors because the typical average movie actor acts in movies, or arguing against national presidents because the typical average president runs a country. Yes, typical college professors write books and other forms of research publication. However, it is completely false that most college professors have publication records demonstrating as high a level of impact (notability, in the form of other academics taking note of her work). That's why we have WP:PROF: to set standards that distinguish the notable professors from the average ones. By that standard, she passes. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability guidelines do not "set standards". They are supposed to try to reflect the standards that the community tends to go with at AFD. They are descriptive and no prescriptive. The fact that an article passes then (if this indeed dones) just says articles like this tend to pass - it is not really an arguement for keeping this. I personally prefer to make up my own mind and not read notability statements, others may do as they think best.--Scott Mac (Doc) 22:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
so you think that any argument based on notability guidelines is invalid at an afd? Somehow, I was under the impression that arguments were supposed to be based on guidelines or policy. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Jeff Chapman (Georgia politician). Cirt (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chapman Waste Disposal

Chapman Waste Disposal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A waste disposal company. Having a notable founder does not make a company notable. The only external links were spam for the founder, not the company. Sgroupace (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't even think the founder, Jeff Chapman qualifies as notable, nor do most of the persons for whom articles have been created as part of someone's project in Georgia gubernatorial election, 2010 to write a separate page for every person who has declared an interest in that office. Now that's something in need of waste disposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 01:07, 31 January 2010
Eastmain is correct, per WP:POLITICIAN, on Mr. Chapman. I tend to agree that most waste disposal companies are not notable in an of themselves (can anyone here recall the name written on the side of the truck that hauls away their garbage each week?) and that the inherent notability of an owner doesn't get passed on to in King Midas fashion to everything the owner touches. Mandsford (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. This is a very unlikely search term, since the total absense of Google News/Books/Scholar hits, and that Mr Chapman's article itself had less than 100 page views back in Dec. Nearly all politicians have either been businesspeople or attorneys or both prior to running for office, and ownership of a company so minor that it doesn't even get mentioned in local papers should not be given even a redirect. Abductive (reasoning) 01:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlikely yes, of course, but "plausible" is quite a different matter. Redirects are cheap, as they say, and we generally retain them if there's a possibility it could be useful. There are any number of reasons someone might type "Chapman Waste Disposal" into the search box, even if it only happens once in a blue moon (since Chapman is apparently running for Governor there might be more interest in him and his history). A redirect does no harm, and I suppose there's a chance we could stick some small tidbit from the article and merge it into Chapman's bio. WP:R#KEEP suggests maintaining a redirect is worthwhile while WP:R#DELETE doesn't have a reason for deletion that would apply here. It's pretty trivial whether we delete or turn this into a redirect, but I think the latter makes more sense. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. nomination withdrawl - oops JForget 00:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory Magarshak

Gregory Magarshak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject does not meet the notability criteria for a musician (WP:MUSN. The article was written by the subject, and none of the references/external links meet the requirements for a reliable source WP:RS. The subject is also not notable as a software developer or entrepreneur WP:N.

I am not a New Yorker or a music aficionado, So I do not know how unusual it is for a child to appear at Carnegie Hall to perform his own work with a professional orchestra. It does not match the WP:MUSN criteria, but if we can find reliable sources that assert that this is unusual and that cite this particular performance, then we can establish notability. If someone can chime in and say "no, this happens a lot," then it's not notable.While looking for sources, also check "Gregori" in addition to "Gregory."

Arch dude (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It hardly ever happens that a child appears at Carnegie hall and performs his work with a professional orchestra. Magarshak was the youngest person to do this as far as I know, the youngest pianist to perform on that level. You can ascertain the notability at http://magarshak.com/piano where several TV programs and magazines are referenced. For example, in the article from "Daily News Magazine", "the youngest person ever to enter Juilliard on a scholarship". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.143.76.29 (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may very well be true. but we cannot depend on magarshak.com. we need to use reliable sources: see WP:RS for an explanation. Please note: it is perfectly acceptavle to cite the Daily News, even if we cannot access the article online. It is NOT acceptable to cite your web site, for two separate reasons: first, it is not a "reliable source," by our very narrow technical definition. Second, it is a web site that is improperly providing unauthorized copies of copyrighted work. Wikipedia has a prohibition against citing such sites. So, to prove notability, you need to do the following:
  • Cite the Daily News article directly, not your web site. It is not necessary for the cited material to be online, but it does make it easier if you can find it online. (I can help you format your citation: Please post a note on my talk page if you need help)
  • Cite at least one additional "reliable source."
  • Make sure that at least two reliable sources (can include the above) comment on this specific performance. Note that a simple performance announcement is insufficient: we need a full article that spends at least a few paragraphs on you specifically.
  • Make sure that at least two reliable sources (can include the above) indicate that this is unusual.
-Arch dude (talk) 03:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so let's cite the Daily News and New York Newsday directly. Or, you can use the actual Carnegie Hall stagebill, which talks directly about how unusual the event is. The Russian article talks about it in no uncertain terms ("unprecedented", etc.) but it's in Russian so I don't know if that's acceptable. I would definitely appreciate your help in formatting it, if you could spare a bit of time. Also ... those stills on the site are from programs like "A Musical Encounter" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0307785/) where there was an entire episode devoted to this. I just don't know where to find it online but if you looked through the series you'd see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.125.45 (talk) 05:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cite and Keep: I, the original deletion nominator, am changing my implicit !vote from "delete" to "keep", assuming that the outcome of the referencing effort is positive. See my talk page for details. If there is a process for withdrawing an AfD nomination, then we should do that. I would still appreciate another opinion: I almost never participate in AfD and I may not be doing this right. Basically we still have a COI newbie, but I intend to mitigate this by monitoring the article. -Arch dude (talk) 23:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 12:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MouseHunt

MouseHunt (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 all Facebook games derserve an article? This game is small, insignificant, and does not meet the general Notability guidelines. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment
Admins, be very careful of this page because they maybe an influx of editors/ips that will oppose the deletion. I know that the gamers may offer incentative (like in game currency) to sway the votes of the community. This has happened in game numerous times to sway the votes of other communities. See: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?xid=mousehunt_contests_2&app_id=10337532241&c_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fmousehunt%252Fboards.php&r_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fmousehunt%252Fboards.php&sig=ddc111322d657e9dbf13dde747f6b19b&topic=5942, which says

This is a pretty simple contest. I am trying to win a grant for a dog rescue and need votes for my dog, Oso. Read all about it here:

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?xid=mousehunt_tavern&app_id=10337532241&c_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fmousehunt%252Fboards.php&r_url=http%253A%252F%252Fapps.facebook.com%252Fmousehunt%252Fboards.php&sig=0e6fc603c9144e75c5c833fb6fb86638&topic=72001&post=1352948#post1352948

Anyway, to drum up more support for the voting, I am starting a contest. So for every 25 votes Oso receives, I will give away 25K in gold. All you have to do is vote, and say you voted on this thread. That's it.

How will I determine a winner? Well, if it is, say, 2 p.m. and he has 50 votes (he already has over 25), the person closest to posting a "I voted" comment will win the 25,000 gold. Simple? Ready? OK, vote here: http://mvp.bissell.com/mvp_PetDetail.aspx?id=8589956282

Thanks for playing and voting!

--Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 06:14, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a template for pointing out that AFD debates aren't a straw poll? If you really think it would be an issue, sticking it at the top of the page would be more beneficial than throwing attacks at the community. --Sonic Mew (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Stricken two blocked socks. Cirt (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do all high-voltage power line towers deserve an article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbe_crossing_1 . The difference between the article I have provided and the article being lumped together for deletion is that the latter is both more well-known and with a few edits to preserve neutrality, will be as significant as the former.198.166.35.81 (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - the references found by Joe Chill and Sonic Mew seem (just about) enough to establish notability. Robofish (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Robofish on those three references. Also, when I use Google news for "MouseHunt" AND "facebook" I get a number of promising results. [45] The Washing Post has an article on it about this and other games that won something, giving it enough coverage in the article, describing what it is. [46] Dream Focus 13:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - more than enough significant independent coverage to demonstrate notability. The Star article is dedicated to this one game which it covers in considerable detail, and the Washington Post article also includes significant coverage, in addition to the two TV items.
I would, however, question the author's decision to move the article about the 1997 film MouseHunt to MouseHunt (film) in order to make way for this article. I can see why it makes sense, since the more recent subject may be the one for which more readers search, and it avoids difficult decisions as to what to call the new article (e.g. MouseHunt (game) or MouseHunt (Facebook application) etc), but is the Facebook game more notable than the film, and does it matter whether it is or not? I'm probably being completely irrational here, but moving older articles like this strikes me as a bit like pushing into a queue in front of those who have been there longer. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dalton Boutte

Dalton Boutte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Formerly unreferenced BLP for which references are thin on the ground.

Does not seem to be generally notable; news mentions seem to be mainly passing references rather than in-depth coverage (VP sells stock! Hold the front page!) and most of the information in here is completely uncited.   pablohablo. 10:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 02:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ty Russell

Ty Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC) *Delete The article says Russell is circumcised and reportedly has a 7-inch penis.. Need I say more about the encylcopedic value (or lack thereof) of the article?--Prodigy96 (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep because he won the mentioned 1995 award, which does help to establish some notability for inclusion.--TrustMeTHROW! 21:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC) User has been blocked, refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details.Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Carrigan

Paul Carrigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom.--TrustMeTHROW! 03:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Strike blocked sock contribution. Ash (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a terrible nomination, obviously no effort has been made to check notability before raising for deletion in a drive against gay porn stars. He was notable enough to act as himself in the spoof film Full Frontal (2001). He directed over 30 porn films. He starred in over 250 published films (perhaps the most well known are Underground (1997 with Jeff Stryker) and Three Brothers (1998)). As a director he created a whole genre of gay porn wrestling films. Obviously the article needs more references (few sources from the 1990s are on-line) but it is also obvious that due to his impact on the adult film market, he meets WP:ARTIST, WP:GNG, WP:PORNBIO and that there is every prospect of reliable sources being found due to sheer size of his body of work. Ash (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
    • There's no evidence of him passing WP:GNG, and he clearly doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. He doesn't pass WP:ARTIST as his work hasn't "been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Epbr123 (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you should take a break and have a nice cup of tea? I thought that being one of the most prolific porn stars of his generation would make it pretty obvious that he is notable for this reason alone. PORNBIO is a guide, not a bible. If you need an award to add, start with his lead role in "The Hills have Bi's", it was winner of Best Bi Picture & Best Sex Comedy at the 1996 Gay Erotic Video Awards. Ash (talk) 12:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The films won the awards, not him. Do you have a reliable source that he was one of the most prolific porn stars of his generation? Epbr123 (talk) 13:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The films are publications, they can be counted. How many people do you think have more gay porn film roles than him? Please expect to wait at least 24 hours if you have any more of these sorts of questions. Ash (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per body of work that meets WP:ENT and WP:PORNBIO. Send to cleanup. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How does he pass WP:ENT or WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Per career and significant roles, how can it possibly be perceived that does he not? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you be more specific about how his career meets the notability criteria? Epbr123 (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    Perhaps more helpful in discussiong your concerns if you could explain how you believe his career and significant roles do not. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per Ash, and WP:Pornbio - "Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre," This is simply yet another in roughly 20-30 recent AfD's against gay pornographic actors. -- Banjeboi 11:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    Which of his contributions are unique? Epbr123 (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
    There are very few comments on this page and only two attributed to Ash. I'll allow you to do your own work. -- Banjeboi 12:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete fails pornbio, bio, all of the relevant notability guidelines for people.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails pornbio and gng for me. I haven't seen any concrete evidence that verifies his notability. Mainly arguments based on being prolific which was rejected as a criteria when PORNBIO was being developed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely no evidence has been advanced at this time to rebut the nominator's assertion that this article fails to meet the general guideline for notability. Nothing has been done to meet the requirements of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy in regard to sourcing. BLP is a core policy and not negotiable. [Yes, this is a cut and paste.] Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for a cut & paste opinion, in this case you do not appear to be basing your opinion on the sources actually included in this article. Ash (talk) 14:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as above, in spite of the fact that the fellow's contributions in pornography are unique; everyone's DNA is unique, after all. Mostly it's mixed in a cup by a prop specialist. Jack Merridew 08:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the world was that supposed to mean? Please, please (please!) tell me that isn't a 2 Girls 1 Cup reference... Stillwaterising (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there appears to be a recent rush of delete opinions either exclusively based on PORNBIO or strongly based on it (from the names of the contributors, likely to be a result of the link I included at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors). In this case Carrigan is an established film director for the specialist genre of erotic wrestling, please take that into account as PORNBIO is for actors not directors. I would also like to point out how blunt a criteria PORNBIO is by contrasting Corrigan's significant impact to the field, and his notability for being the second most credited actor in the history gay pornography, with Christopher Ashlee who amazingly passes PORNBIO because he was once named (along with seven other actors) in a group scene award in a 2009 Grabby but is notable for absolutely nothing else and has been credited with just 2 not-particularly-notable films. Ash (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the claim that he is "one of the most prolific porn stars of his generation" do not appear to be verifiable through any reliable sources, nor has Carrigan himself apparently received any significant coverage in any reliable, third-party sources. Only a few of his roles have even managed to be verified, which could be seen as a severe WP:BLP violation to associate him with other works and make claims about his career without quality reliable sources. Despite what some folk slike to claim, WP:BIO does NOT trump WP:N. If there are no sources, there are no sources. Ash claims there may be offline sources, but none have been produced. No objection to userifying until such sources are found, but as is, it should be deleted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Please do not misrepresent my statement. I stated above that "there is every prospect of reliable sources being found due to sheer size of his body of work". It may not have been your intent, but your phrasing reads like an allegation that I was faking the existence of sources. I encourage you to consider the options explained in WP:ATD, particularly as I suggest that the current level of sources in the article are enough to avoid deletion as being unsourced (not that this is ever a good sole reason to delete as we would automatically delete all stub articles). Ash (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find that 250+ (or 265+) acting credits and 30 director credits to be sufficient in establishing a notable career. --Stillwaterising (talk) 23:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I was unfamiliar with WP:pornbio, so I've had a little read through:
  1. The films he was in won the awards, not him, so fail.
  2. No mention of nominations, fail.
  3. Is not a Playboy playmate, fail.
  4. Hasn't started a trend, nor starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature, nor is in the hall of fame, fail.
  5. Has only featured ONCE in mainstream media, fail. Ryan4314 (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Harmon

Nick Harmon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was No consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Gulzar Saifi

Mohammad Gulzar Saifi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A whopping total of 26 Google hits for this name. 161 for just "Gulzar Saifi", which is a redirect to this page. Other than that redirect, only two real Wiki pages actually link here--one for the film The Final Inch and one for the director of the film. Clearly not notable as an individual, although the film (of which he is reportedly the protagonist) certainly is. Most of this "biography" is actually information about the film. I recommend copying the small amount of biographical information from Mohammad Gulzar Saifi into the article The Final Inch and deleting with or without redirect. (A note: The user who started this article is currently unable to participate in this discussion due to the terms of an ArbCom decision. If it is felt that my nomination of the article at this time is inappropriate, please postpone it until he is able to contribute directly to the conversation.) Bueller 007 (talk) 08:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Nominator is suggesting merging, which is not a deletion. See WP:Merge and delete. Taemyr (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not necessarily suggesting merging, although I would be satisfied with this outcome. I would like a decision about whether the article should be kept at all---hence I said "delete with or without redirect". Google hits seem to suggest that the subject of the article is completely non-notable---from what I understand it's not even been well confirmed that he is actually the protagonist in the movie---and therefore he may be unworthy even of having his info copied to The Final Inch. And if he is truly the protagonist, the meagre amount of information we have about him could be copied to the page about the movie, but that does not necessarily mean that a redirect page should be used. I am indeed asking for opinion about deletion of this page, therefore WP:Merge and delete does not apply. Bueller 007 (talk) 04:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silex Flash CMS

Silex Flash CMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reference review:

  • Official site: Reliable, Not independent of the subject.
  • Sourceforge: Reliable, Trivial.
  • GNU- Reliable, Trivial.

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of the sources used to show notability necessary depends on an article's subject matter. Mere "obscurity" should not cause sources to be discounted, if they are considered to be reliable. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC) — Werner Heisenberg (talk • contribs) was recently blocked or banned for sock puppetry and is tagged to enforce policy.[reply]
Actually the prominence of the sources matters, because we'd have every topic from a college newspaper here otherwise (like every student who had a paragraph written about him, and so forth). In this case all the sources blog-like, and with the exception of the O'Reilly one are self-published. The O'Reilly blog only reproduces the official blurb of the software, and asks readers about their opinion. Some of the other look like splogs or aggregators of product descriptions at best. Pcap ping 08:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also the creator of the page, User:Lexoyo, appears to have a WP:COI, see link on his user page. Pcap ping 09:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourav Chatterjee

Sourav Chatterjee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He seems to be a marginally notable academic. The article has been subjected to edit warring ranging from attempts to stub it to one sentence to adding silly puffery. I'm nominating it in the hope that the claim(s) for notability will become apparent. Pcap ping 05:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have sources saying that? Because mathematicians bloom early, so I could just as easily make up a rule that he should be famous by now. His citation count is 68, 22, 19, 18, 15, 15, 14, 10, 8, 7, 7, 6, 4.... I also note that the article makes no particular claim of an advancement in the field; it just says "he worked on" some things. One has to ask; if every professor works on some research topics, will not every professor get an article? Abductive (reasoning) 03:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation 68 is not him, but someone from Department of Physics and Astronomy, Northwestern University. But even the other numbers are not at all that low for 2-year-old math papers. He has sort of revolutionized Stein's method, finding striking new applications, e.g., gave a new and simple proof of the Komlós-Major-Tusnády strong approximation theorem (1976) for random walks and Brownian motion, which is a strengthening of Skorokhod's embedding theorem. The original KMT paper has 637 citations on Google Scholar. So, these are clearly advancements in probability, how great, I don't really know how to judge. At Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Whack-a-mole.3F, I wrote that
He might be exceptionally good, but it certainly seems too early to have an article on him. For instance, I know a lot of youngish probabilists who are more notable than him (say, based on citations of their first ten papers on Google Scholar, or on prizes) without wikipedia articles on them. But, with the current more realistic article, I don't think it matters much if it is deleted or not.
Maybe wikipedia should have articles on those other youngish probabilists, too. Anyway, My “vote” is weak delete, but can also keep. --GaborPete (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The loss of the paper with 68 citations is very damaging to his case, and really should clinch the deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 06:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AmeriCares

AmeriCares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hello there, Don the Sockpuppet made this nomination because no references exist for the article and it is written like a advertisement. Five Ton Sockpuppet (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted, per WP:CSD #7 "No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)." - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 10:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RedSQ

RedSQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. No reliable sources to verify notability. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American Technologies Network Corporation

American Technologies Network Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet the notability guidelines for Wikipedia. Much effort has been made on the part of Phantomsteve to research notability, but none was found. The creator and main editor, Stripedfox, has admitted to COI. See the talk page for a detailed discussion between Stripedfox and Phantomsteve. I had previously proposed this for deletion, but since it was controversial, the PROD was removed, therefore I am now nominating through this method. Joshua Scott (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to ask all of you several questions about this article and about Wikipedia guidelines. As I understand, the main argument was that all of the publications I signed were promotional and ATN maybe have payed money for the material about their company. And for example "The New York Times" is more trusted and respected magazine. But, as I know, publishing in "The New York Times" also costs money. Two years ago to place the article to the first page of this magazine was nearly 2000$. Now, I think, it is much more expensive. So, the first question is, do you consider that only that magazines which take more money for the place on their pages than the rest are more trusted than others?

As for the next question, I have already written about this some time ago and I want to repeat this again. This company does not produce products of daily use, but it offers equipment for Army, Law Enforcement, Police, hunting, hiking etc. So, I think that this branch is enough important for the general Encyclopedia like this one. And as for the night vision and thermal night vision, do you really think that these inventions are not enough important for the world? And ATN were the fist who has developed some technologies for this branch, that many other companies now use (It is in my article).

Also I wanted to ask you to be so kind and list that magazines, publications and Award nominations that can be verified specifically for this industry. And I ask you not to write platitudes but to list concrete publications, which can really be interested to write an article about this company сonsidering it's specificity without money and which are really enough trusted for Wikipedia. Because I think that if there is no enough trusted sources for this concrete theme, it does not mean that this information is not interesting for Encyclopedia, that only means that there is info that is not enough developed in magazines, but despite that it still has it's informational value.

And for the last one, I give you the link to the list of magazines and PDF files of the publications about this company. This list is constantly updated and I hope that you will find respected in this area magazines there that will be enough trusted for Wiki. And I also wanted to recall that in other Encyclopedias only subject specialists approve articles, so if you are Language Specialist you should correct and approve only text, but not the informational content I think. And to approve or deny the article I will kindly ask you to consult with specialists in this concrete theme. That is all, I hope you will review your opinion after consulting with specialists about this theme and I will wait for your decision.Stripedfox | Talk 10:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. In addition to overriding delete consensus, not seeing here significant coverage in multiple secondary sources independent of the subject. Cirt (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michel D'Amours

AfDs for this article:
Michel D'Amours (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep He passes WP:ARTIST #3 as he stars in at least 24 films (a significant body of work) including the well known "Young Hung And Full Of Cum". Nominations for deletion are not intended to replace "improvement needed" tags and PORNBIO is not an excuse to purge gay pornstars from Wikipedia when their body of work is self-evident. Ash (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • He doesn't pass WP:ARTIST as his work hasn't "been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Do you really believe every porn star who's appeared in over 24 films is notable?. Epbr123 (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • ATD should be followed here. I note that "River Patrol" got Video Of The Year by the Adam Gay Video Directory (which only exists to provide independent reviews). I guess you'll find a reason to ignore it as you are pushing so hard to delete these porn stars that you are biting Keep comments in all these related gay porn AfDs. Ash (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why are you pushing so hard to keep these non-notable porn stars? You're not doing them any favours by keeping their poorly sourced bios on Wikipedia. Epbr123 (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You fail to follow BEFORE and have been blanket converting PRODs to deletions. I have raised many articles for deletion when there was no prospect of the sources being improved to demonstrate notability, including gay porn actors; that does not appear to be the case here. Ash (talk) 11:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Contrary to the nom's opinion, the significant career indeed meets WP:ENT and WP:PORNBIO. ASH is quite correct. Again. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please explain how he meets any of those criteria? Epbr123 (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Better for a nominator to explain how a significant body of work possibly could not. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. His body of work doesn't include multiple notable films, so it doesn't pass WP:ENT. His body of work isn't a "unique contribution to a specific pornographic genre", so it doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Why do you claim he meets these criteria when he clearly doesn't? Epbr123 (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    24 films is a significant body of work that meets WP:ENT. That those films do not (yet) have articles on Wikipedia, does not make then non-notable... only that no one has yet written the articles. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you prove that any of his films are notable? Epbr123 (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, 24 films is a significant body of work that meets WP:ENT. That those films do not (yet) have articles on Wikipedia, does not make then non-notable... only that no one has yet written the articles. Starring in 24 films allows me a reasonable presumption or notability, just as dismissing his body of work allows you to presume otherwise. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So you want every porn star who's appeared in multiple films to have an article? You're entitled to your opinion, but it's a minority one. Epbr123 (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be reading something into my words that are not there. I am not and have not spoken about "every porn star". Such misleading presumptions are not helpful to this discussion... specially as this particular AFD seems to show your opinion as being the minority. Editors familiar with my comments at other AFDs know that I am quite willing to opine a delete if I feel guidline has not or cannot be met. I believe in the good brought to the project by diligent application of WP:IMPROVE and I always give serious consideration to the consensually supported WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE before commenting. Surmoutable issues (even if you yourself might not wish to personally surmount them in some instances as evidenced by your having turned prodded concerns into deletion nomonations) are never a valid reason for deletion. Though you might quite sincerely feel an article cannot be improved, removing those prods kinda seems that you do not wish anyone else to try, and have set a ticking clock which had not existed beforehand. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not misreading anything: "Starring in 24 films allows me a reasonable presumption of notability". If this is not what you meant to say, please then explain how Michel D'Amours is more notable than any other porn star with multiple films. Epbr123 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion is not about "every porn star" nor about "any other porn star". From the title on this page, I see it is about a fellow named Michel D'Amours... and no one else. His multiple awards and significant career meet WP:PORNBIO. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 10:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He hasn't won any awards, and saying "significant career" doesn't explain anything. Epbr123 (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Epbr123, your interpretation of ARTIST may be different to others. You appear to be stuck in a loop, just telling people they are wrong and putting them on the defensive is unlikely to get them to change their opinion in an AfD. I am not attempting to give you advice, just highlighting that this does not help reach a consensus. Ash (talk) 11:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Claiming that someone has won awards when they haven't doesn't help reach a consensus. If someone can explain to me, based on actual facts, how he meets any of the guidelines, I'd be willing to change my mind. I wouldn't be suprised if there is a loophole somewhere that makes him notable. Epbr123 (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Epbr123, I've noticed that loop also. Since its a given that mainstream press does not cover a gay porn star unless the gay porn star gets coverage for something not involved with gay porn, and since absolutely anyone can bring any article to AFD for just about any reason... I think it is up to the nominator in such special cases to show how WP:ATD is not a consideration and more specifically how an article about a prolific actor can somehow never be WP:IMPROVED. Please visit all the gay porn genre websites, find the gay porn articles about him, and come back and tell us how the genre-specific coverage by genre-specific does not meet guideline. Please show us your facts, rather than your opinion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails PORNBIO, GNG, and ENT for me. ARTIST to me is more applicable to the directors and producers of the genre. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Directors watch and give direction. Producers watch and foot the bills. It's the ARTIST that actually performs. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely no evidence has been advanced at this time to rebut the nominator's assertion that this article fails to meet the general guideline for notability. Nothing has been done to meet the requirements of the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy in regard to sourcing. BLP is a core policy and not negotiable. References, so-called, don't appear to be reliable sources or even, so far as can be seen, terribly relevant. A substantial film review in a reliable source works towards makes a film notable, generally, but not necessarily any members of the cast. Walled garden anyone? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer please note: Pornography stars, and even more specifically gay pponagraphic stars, do NOT, by the nature of their genre, receive the mainstream press coverage as do actors who keep their pants on. It is always best to judge an article for WP:POTENTIAL for improvement for what it is, not what it is not... and those that do not look for sources will naturally not find them. For instance, a search finds a May 1994 review of the film Homegrown in Gay AVN where the reviewer specifically praises D'Amours by writing "Lead star Michel D'Amours shows us he can act too, despite his heavy French Canadian accent." WARNING: Other genre-specific graphic image-laden sources include Torso magazine August 1995, Lolita mags, Zeus, BD Quebec (French), Pornteam, Gay Porn Times, Gay Erotic Archives... and many more such. And it is to be noted that he is also known by Michael D'Amours, not just the French "Michel". Almost the only thing I found without graphic images was his less-than-complete IMDB page. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The coverage you think deserves highlighting seems to be one line from a film review. Is that really the most significant, in-depth commentary there is? Angus McLellan (Talk) 04:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The question should be, are there resonable prospects for sources being improved? If there are, then ATD is appropriate as deletion is not being driven by blatent BLP violations (i.e. all data is supported by primary sources (such as the film credits in question) but may suffer from weak secondary sources). Searching the British Library catalogues shows no results for Manshots or Torso magazine, however they do have some relevant 1990s gay magazines (the HCA or LAGNA gay archive may be more useful but not all their gay archive material is catalogued on-line). The IHLIA catalogue does show matches for Manshots, for example, and has a rare international archive of erotic gay magazines. D'Amours' most productive period was 1993-1995, so online sources will be rare, however as he did appear as a big-name cover model on magazine covers and some references have already been added, it seems likely that relevant sources using private collections and institutional archives can be found, particularly if someone with knowledge of American gay archives does a little research. Ash (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 7 February 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) 20:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pál Sümegi

Pál Sümegi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural - I declined a PROD on this one, since Gscholar turned up decent citation counts. I know nothing about archaeology and read no Hungarian however, so I refer here for further discussion RayTalk 00:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and moveAdd his name and the sentance of why he's notable with citation to List of Hungarians. It will remain redlinked and keep its one sentance long article structure and two references and the redlink might prompt someone to actually create a real article. Nefariousski (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The Hungarian article says he is a doctor of the Hungarian Academy of Science, docent in a Hungarian university, has written 8 books, chapters in 37 books, many articles in periodicals and has 260 "scientific announcements" (eerr.. I don't know this is the proper name of them in English) Their summarized impact factor is 22.000. He has got many scholarships and two prizes. The sad thing is: I don't know this all made him notable, or not according to the enwiki rules. --Perfectmiss (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with the deletion. Notability and fame are not the same. His notability is supported by the above-written references. Earning fame in geoarcheology as in many other auxiliary sciences of archaeology or historiograpy (heraldics, faleristics, sfragistics) is practically impossible unless someone starts a National Geography TV carrier on some popular issue such as "How to dig out the Holy Grail?" My personal opinion is that we can find easier notable historians among 'unknown' researchers than among famous essayists compiling 1000 page best-sllers by up-grading commonplaces on popular issues. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 17:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The brevity of the article, I suspect. Not that this is a bad reason to delete an article; this one says, in total, "Pál Sümegi (born May 11, 1960 in Tapolca) is a Hungarian geoarchaeologist at the University of Szeged." As such, it could be deleted under A7. If people can be bothered to tell us what somebody is noted for, why have an article, right? Abductive (reasoning) 09:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Lone Car

One Lone Car (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet notability guidelines. Lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources (references provided are either primary ones, blogs or trivial). No indication of awards, charted singles or albums or anything else that might help meet notability guidelines. Not on a notable label either. RadioFan (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do Not Delete- I live in NYC and I've seen lots of write ups about this band when they come through. Also, i found this from Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas --

http://www.pegasusnews.com/news/2008/dec/13/live-review-one-lone-car-radiant-and-calhoun-lolas/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bball606 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fremont College

Fremont College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable proprietary career college with no significant third-party references. Reads like an ad, author is apparently a single purpose account. Searching Fremont College on google returns three related hits: this article, and two links to their website, google news comes back with absolutely nothing.

Accredited or not, as a for-profit institution, Fremont should be held to the same notability standards as a business, and in that regard, it fails miserably. 2 says you, says two 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, yes they are accredited. It is through one of those national organizations designed to meet the bare minimum DoE requirements to receive Title IV federal aid, not one of the more recognized regional accreditation agencies. I also remember reading somewhere that the idea of all schools being notable does not necessarily hold true for for-profit institutions. Anyone can set up a career school and get dubious "national accreditation" and call themselves a college. 2 says you, says two 13:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Google News unearthed a fascinating connection between this institution in its 1956 naming and Sequoia University, which is better documented. At the time the institution was investigated as a diploma mill and received attention across the state of California. It's worth keeping for that alone. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 01:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in some form, I suppose, per Edward Vielmetti. I am not opposed to a merge or what have you, I just think there is a home for this content somewhere. JBsupreme (talk) 01:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Among other things, it's fully accredited as an institution of higher education. (I verified its accreditation on its accreditor's database, and from a US Dept of Education directory I verified that the accreditor is recognized as an accreditor.) Furthermore, Fremont apparently has a long history. --Orlady (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Past consensus has stated that accreditation is not necessarily an indicator of notability when the school in question is for-profit or proprietary, these schools are to be treated like businesses for WP:N. That being said, if there's a connection with L. Ron Hubbard then this should be kept, personally I'd feel better with a merge - Sequoia has better sourcing and is more developed, we could fit what is verifiable from Fremont with that. 2 says you, says two 05:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Sarre

Tony Sarre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A heart-warming tale, but one article in The Age does not notability make. And other than that article, I didn't find any coverage in secondary reliable sources. Fences&Windows 00:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Robertson (television)

Lisa Robertson (television) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not to be confused with any other person of the same name, the subjec of this minimally referenced biography is a TV presenter on QVC. The article is essentially a paraphrase of the QVC page on her. Press reporting seems largely limited to passing mentions and a stalking case some years back. No doubt well-known thanks to her work, but not necessarily "notable" in the WP:N Wikipedia sense. Not much here here really. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable biography. There is a lack of a properly referenced body of work. Stormbay (talk)
  • KeepThis article should be reinstated and should not of been deleted.I see less notable people with less information and no referenced body of work having biographies listed on Wikipedia.Also almost everyone article or biography is a paraphrase from where the contributor has copy and pasted it from somewhere else.Laker44 (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Geschichte (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Conover

Tracy Conover (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 musician. Joe Chill (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Search3

Search3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website, article written by single-purpose user who is a co-founder of the company. There is some coverage here, but beyond that I have been unable to find any significant third-party coverage from reliable sources. Haakon (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your review, i understand the feedback and can provide significantly more links to articles written about Search3 from many sites, will that help? I can't do much about the WP:SPA if other independent people edit the document does that remove this concern? I also see many sites like ours within Wikipedia so would love your assistance to make this page more appropriate, can you help edit it?--Cdclayton (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment cdclayton, the issue isn't really that this is the only thing your editing. A thousand people could edit it, but that doesn't make it any more or less notable of a search engine CTJF83 chat 07:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, with no prejudice against recreation later when it becomes more notable (more than Yet Another Me-Too metasearch with release-buzz that promptly falls into obscurity). I checked the refs, and they seem to be are mostly roundup/annotated-lists (not in-depth), passing mention, or near-launch-time items mostly quoting involved people (not independent in-depth analysis). DMacks (talk) 08:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. The IP user who was the person who actually wanted deletion did not come participate in the discussion, the formal nominator had no !vote, and nobody else has participated. With nobody actively calling for deletion, the most appropriate way to close is as keep, without prejudice to renomination if someone is actively willing to argue for deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey L. Hoeven

Mikey L. Hoeven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creating this debate page on behalf of [86.40.214.5] who did not complete all steps for AfD. Reason given was: "Notability is not inherited, this is a biography with no independent multiple reliable sources, graduating, having children and being married for 25 years is not notable" DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mustang Mike

Mustang Mike (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Autobiography of unremarkable wrestler. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge relevant content to Van Tuong Nguyen. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darshan Singh

Darshan Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Darshan Singh is only mentioned in primary sources, namely news sources, and only respect to a single event, namely the execution of Van Tuong Nguyen. He does not meet the general notability standard, nor the specific one for people, because of lack of coverage in secondary sources. See also People notable only for one event. Request Deletion Bejnar (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 00:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English country music

English country music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is unreferenced, and because of the nebulous subject matter, I see no way to reference it. Even if we verify the events described, we cannot easily verify that the culturual significance is anything other than the article author's opinion. Chutznik (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop Factory

Desktop Factory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable corporation, lacks external refs, is a small startup that never actually sold a product and was consumed by another company. MBisanz talk 05:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 00:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Briody

Dan Briody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Considering the only source is an op-ed piece in a newspaper and the books don't appear to be notable on their own (the first is ranked 873,000th on WP), I believe he fails our notability guidelines. MBisanz talk 05:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pint o' Politics: A Discourse on the Modern Poltical Climate

AfDs for this article:
Pint o' Politics: A Discourse on the Modern Poltical Climate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self-published book with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 04:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kaneva Game Platform

Kaneva Game Platform (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article describes thing which no longer exists RawrMage (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manga BoyZ

Manga BoyZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable role-playing game, with no coverage in reliable sources. TNXMan 21:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manga BoyZ is not a Manga but Role-playing_game ! Le Grimoire is a publisher in France since 1992. Manga BoyZ is one of the universe published by the editor. Four books are available. Reliable sources can be found. --Ellwen (talk) 19:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. JForget 00:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Necessary Records

Necessary Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Geschichte (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elastik Soul

Elastik Soul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Airpushers

Airpushers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Walter Chin

Walter Chin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:CREATIVE. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Summerton

Emma Summerton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:CREATIVE. May also fail WP:PROMO Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This photographer does fail WP:CREATIVE, but I believe is notable given the large number of citations of her photography from a wide range of sources. A simple google search and a google news search bring up lots of hits on her and she seems to have collaborated in more than a cursory way with a large number of magazines and fashion houses. She is notable as a photographer, but not a creative one. I have added a few of the sources I turned up and will try to add some more later. Jenafalt (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's a notable fashion photographer; as Jenafalt as demonstrated, there are more than enough sources to prove notability here. Rebecca (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Squeaks by with adequate sources, as per Rebecca's observation. Warrah (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a pro photographer with such a wide resume, including editorial work for Vogue and the like, is certainly notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I am persuaded by the keep arguments. Any POV/spam concerns should be addressed through editing. Those, however, are editing issues, and I am persuaded that the subject merits inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 00:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ferguson (photographer)

Adam Ferguson (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Does not meet the criteria of WP:CREATIVE Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's no problem. Even though I am arguing to delete the page, I can clearly see why you would have thought it was worth creating. Of course these debates - regardless of their outcome - should never reflect on an creator/editor who has acted in good faith (as you have clearly done). Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. This was a tough one for me, I thought that this person should be notable enough as per WP:GNG, but apparently he lacks the non-trivial coverage from multiple third party sources. That's not to say there never will be such sources available, so perhaps in time this one can be recreated. JBsupreme (talk) 07:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I know the consensus so far has been 'delete', but I did a bit of in-depth searching and found some non-trivial coverage to satisfy WP:GNG - namely [52][53][54][55][56], and to some extent [57] (the first one also goes part-way to satisfying WP:CREATIVE's 'significant exhibition' criterion). The list goes on. Therefore, I'd say that this article satisfies the general notability guideline - significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. JulieSpaulding (talk) 07:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Response): Thanks for the links. Unfortunately the definition of a "non-trivial" source is a bit subjective. There are however some guidelines on relaible sources at WP:RELIABLE, which seems to favour news articles and scholorly sources. Self-published articles, blogs and promotional material are considered "questionable sources". Some of the links you provided might fall into the latter category. There are many, many photographers (and other creative professionals) who get mentioned in a range of material, but I am not sure that these are what the guidelines intend. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Jenafalt (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again, as with the afd for Emma Summerton this article does fail WP:CREATIVE but is still about someone who is notable enough for an article on wikipedia. Not all photographers have to be very creative to be notable - some are notable for their commercial success, for example. Their are many sources available to show that this person is notable. Jenafalt (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: WP:CREATIVE isn't about the creativity of the photographer. It's about their notability. As a rule, the photographer should pass at least one of the criteria set out in the policy and this should be supported by independent and reliable sources. We don't have that with this article. The one reliable source (Time magazine) is an article that mentions Ferguson but doesn't confirm his notability. I encourage everyone commenting here to read WP:CREATIVE and see if they can't find one or two sources that provide evidence against one of the criteria. If that doesn't happen, tyhe keep votes really aren't worth much and the article should be deleted on the basis of lack of notability Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response I am confused as to why this article has to meet WP:CREATIVE. Why can't the photographer be notable in other terms? Jenafalt (talk) 07:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response: He certainly can be, but then the article would only give passing reference to his photography and focus on the reason for his notability. As it stands, it's about him as a photographer, which is why his notability as a photographer is being debated. Even the article's name states that he is a photographer! WP:CREATIVE provides the specific guidelines for determining notability of photographers, among others. If you have evidence that he is notable for some other reason, by all means rewrite the artile and provide the sources! Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: I suppose what I am saying is that he can be a notable photographer without being a particularly creative one. This was also the point I was making with the afd for Emma Summerton. There are some photographers who are not notable as art photographers, but are notable for other things - one of which might be them being a very in demand fashion or commercial photographer. The work doesn't have to be very good in a strictly creative sense, but their use by lots of people is. So for example virgin broadband might be a terrible broadband provider, but it is still important because lots of people use it. - maybe a not very good example, but can you see what I am getting at? I think that the WP:CREATIVE might be appropriate for art photographers, but not for commercial photographers.Jenafalt (talk) 10:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Response. The "creative" in WP:CREATIVE is just a tag. If you read the first line of the criteria, it's for creative professionals, where the word "creative" means "make stuff". It covers scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals. It doesn't, as far as I can tell, try to imply that the creative professional is particularly artistic. Wikipeterproject (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Interned at VII, shortly thereafter invited to join a small and select group (people from VII and Magnum) to appear (he's here) at "Seeking Justice: Social Activism through Journalism & Documentary Practice". No he doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE, just as a huge percentage of Wikipedia biographees don't meet WP:CREATIVE. Flash your tits for a photographer one day and be airbrushed into the centre pages of Playboy (US circulation 2.4M) and you are guaranteed an article, have photos by you shown in Time (US circulation 3.4M) and you're still a nobody. Do note, however, that its bizarreness aside, WP:CREATIVE is just one part of a page whose preambulatory nutshell says that A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Ferguson was covered very significantly by Photo District News, got more than a mention at Time, and is written up (not merely as an alumnus but as a featured guest) by an arm of Griffith University. These are all independent of Ferguson and their total adds up to significance to me. -- Hoary (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:GNG. Coverage in Photo District News and Time is non-trivial in my opinion. Jujutacular T · C 19:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Color symbolism and psychology

Color symbolism and psychology (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 premise of the article is flawed; psychology is an actual science, whereas the rest is just contestable mysticism. Mixing the two in one article makes very little sense. The sourced material should be moved to different or new articles where appropriate, and the new-age content should be separated from the content about psychological research or forgotten about entirely where it isn't documenting a directly attributable belief (with sources). Snied (talk) 16:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suppose the question is whether anything worthwhile can be salvaged. If anything, it might be by deleting everything prior to the Psychology section? But then almost every sentence even in that remaining section is crying out for citation-required tags. AllyD (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the salvageable stuff is pretty marginal too, that's why I personally believe that deletion is the best option. If the article itself is to be salvaged it will need to be edited very heavily and also renamed. Snied (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the content regarding colors as per specific cultures and religions is true and can be sourced - it should be restructured into 2 articles, but throwing it all away would be a waste. The article also does need to be more clear in what color meanings are universal across cultures and which are specific - I'm guessing many of the meanings are specific to primarily Western countries but aren't specified as so. 128.113.241.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is too much of a muddle to keep in the article space but it could be put in somebody's user space if they think parts of it are useful to writing better articles on these two subjects. A wealth of source material exists on these subjects, much of it promoting various views of the meaning of different colours. The articles need to cover all the main views rather than make definite statements according to one of the theories. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Badly written and mostly unsourced. The few available sources are not peer-reviewed and frankly look fishy. At a glance, it seems to present a mostly western preference for using certain colours for different things as some sort of universal law. This collection of pseudoscientific nonsense is really a shame as there is actually quite a bit of interesting peer-reviewed material about color psychology (like http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a790571796~db=all~order=page). Smocking (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.keralapsc.org/ranks/r76-04.htm
  2. ^ http://books.google.co.in/books?id=1oXfdBlCBZwC&pg=PA314
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_January_31&oldid=341155513"