Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 March 31
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 15:37, 3 March 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Phillip Vaden (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)
Doesn't establish notability. Was in a few small films, and has a few mentions on Google News (are these even about him?), but no significant coverage. American Eagle (talk) 05:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is no substantial coverage about him. There is none at all for any of the movie roles or the straight to video movie that the article hilights as his best known role. The article makes no mention of him acting in stage plays so it isn't clear that the google news results are about the same person. If they are about the same actor, notability is still not established by being mentioned in some reviews for one play; as all the results appear to be about his supporting role in "In the Garden". -- Whpq (talk) 19:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. accidental afd -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 01:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Grade4 2010 (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)
Personal diary-like entry, no subject and non-encyclopedic. Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 23:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Never mind. Article was deleted. Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 23:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Crystalline Consciousness Technique (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)
Other than the website and a few dubiously independent webpages far off the beaten track of reliability, this appears not to have received any in depth coverage. The obvious merge target, Vibrational medicine, desperately needs attention, but I do not think that this is prominent enough even in that community for this material to be of use there. The founder likewise fails WP:Notability - 2/0 (cont.) 23:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable coverage.Novangelis (talk) 01:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no reliable sources, no coverage outside primary sources, content is painfully ambiguous and ultimately self promotional. highly subjective, not capable of being helped into an encyclopedia article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per everyone. Probably could have been speedied. Edward321 (talk) 14:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Hoax. Herostratus (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ladue Yacht Club (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)
Uncited, probable hoax John Nagle (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:HOAX WP:NOTE Not found in Google, Google Maps, or Yachting Club of America club index. There is a LaDue Reservoir in Ohio, but it is state property and open to the public. --John Nagle (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Fails WP:V. The article deals with Ladue, Missouri, near which I grew up. Obvious hoax. Deor (talk) 03:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – Unsourced, likely hoax. Not notable regardless. American Eagle (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Located Lake Ladue in MO. Google map. Lake is approx 500' in longest dimension. No sign of any boats at all, let alone yachts. --John Nagle (talk) 04:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also not actually in Ladue, as the club described in the article supposedly is. I suppose it was named for Ladue Road, which it's very near to. Deor (talk) 04:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was WP:CSD#A7 - 2/0 (cont.) 23:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Riley Rayner (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 person. Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 23:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Brock Cemetery (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 so much an article as a list of 2 famous dead people. No references provided to establish notability. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, weakly. If it holds the gravesites are of notable people, as Annie Oakley surely is, it deserves a mention on their own pages. A Books search reveals the existence of several Brock Cemeteries in several different states, but no in depth treatment of this one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The cemetery does get mentioned in relation to Oakley (see [1], and [2]. But these are really mentions in articles about Annie Oakley. I don't see this as sufficient to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete The 2 most famous inhabitants of the cemetery (and the ones which all references make mention of that I can find, other than general burial announcements of non-notable (from Wikipedia's point of view) people) are Annie Oakley and her husband. At best, this should be a redirect to the Annie Oakley article, but as other people are interred there, it may not be suitable for a redirect. The mention in the Oakley article is sufficient in itself, in my opinion - an article is not justified, unless significant coverage of the cemetery can be found (although I was not able to find such coverage) - and I can find practically no coverage of Douglas E. Dickey in relation to the cemetery. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete sadly. I am not against pages that have limited info on them, especially if more can be added to in the future. But I don't see how this will happen for this page. If it stays it should get an "orphan tag" since it will only link to OA or DD's pages. MarnetteD | Talk 01:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with this little info, it can be easily recreated if sources to establish notability can be found. Dew Kane (talk) 04:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Keep - as per modifications/improvements to article (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ten Mile Point, New York (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)
Couldn't find anything about this scenic "area" (whatever that is); it's not even notable enough to be mentioned in the Skaneateles Lake article. Its "claim to fame" is that it has a camp there, but that doesn't have or deserve its own article either. ~EdGl ★ 22:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails to indicate notability, either for the scenic area or the camp. The scenic area doesn't even appear to be a recognized name outside of information relating to the camp. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 21:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it is a geographical place with significant coverage in secondary sources. The article has been improved since it was nominated. It now has a U.S.G.S. link, a map, old photo, and some references. --Bejnar (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Great job with the article! I happily withdraw the nomination. ~EdGl ★ 19:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: well rescued by Bejnar!--Milowent (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all geographic locations are accepted as notable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was WP:CSD#A7 - 2/0 (cont.) 23:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mir Najeeb Ullah Khan Jamali (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 person, for whom a Google search brings nothing save this page. I originally speedied it, but the page creator removed it without explaining what makes this person notable, hence it being brought here. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no assertion of notability (you were right to speedy). ~EdGl ★ 22:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Morgan Creek Vineyards (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 fails to assert notability in accordance with WP:CORP and WP:WINETOPICS. Being mentioned in a wine guide and in local publications doesn't make a winery notable. Tagged for notability concerns October 2009; no improvements since then. Article prod was removed by author without addressing concerns. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 23:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I beg to differ: I removed the prod but also added yet another reference from a published book. Prodder stated that there was no claim to notability--well, one printed source, by noted wine author Kevin Zraly, says the winery is the largest in the state of Alabama, and I added that adjective to assert notability. Oh, keep. Notable. Printed sources are included. Coverage of the winery and its activities is found in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Anniston Star, which testifies to its status as a tourist attraction--regional, and not exactly Six Flags, but still. Last but not least, it's one of the 100 Dishes to Eat in Alabama Before You Die. Granted, Alabama is not Napa Valley, and muscadine ain't no pinot noir, but I think this passes WP:N. Drmies (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article asserted no such claim at the time I first proposed it for deletion. If it's indeed the largest in Alabama (only 30 acres?) then that should be mentioned. I see it is now. I'm happy to withdraw this AfD. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not so fast...(but thanks for your graciousness)...yours truly apparently needs glasses, or a brain, or both: Zraly obviously does not claim it is the largest, just that it's well-known. See this correction by LiberalFascist. I mean, I still believe in its notability (as I did before), but if your offer was based on that claim, please withdraw, with my thanks, and my apologies for this strange, strange misreading of a source. I'll leave a note for Milowent on their talk page also. And then I should really sign off. Drmies (talk) 05:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The article asserted no such claim at the time I first proposed it for deletion. If it's indeed the largest in Alabama (only 30 acres?) then that should be mentioned. I see it is now. I'm happy to withdraw this AfD. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep:
Its the largest in the State of AlabamaIt appears to have sufficient sourcing, but my keep is now slightly weaker until I have more time to look into it. (Prior stuff: To compare to recent precedents, its much more notable than the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frenchman Hills Winery deletion, and more notable than Wikipedia:Deletion review/Valhalla Vineyards and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spencer Roloson Winery ).--Milowent (talk) 04:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC) EDITED--Milowent (talk) 06:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I agree, I need to look at it more closely myself. When I prodded it yesterday, it was a pretty obvious deletion candidate based on the text and a cursory glance at the sources. I also want to point out that WP:WINETOPICS was not invented out of thin air; it's a logical and rational interpretation of existing notability guidelines in the context of wine topics. I encourage Drmies and Milowent to re-examine the article through that lens. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I've examined the sources. This winery has, at best, a weak claim of notability. The problem is mainly WP:SIGCOV, especially in the context of WP:WINESOURCES. Let's go through them:
- Kevin Zraly's Wine Guide - a comprehensive list of wineries. Having a 1 line mention in a wine guide doesn't confer notability. Non-notable wineries are mentioned too. There are only six in Alabama, with the first and largest listed, and the remaining grouped under "well known".
- Birmingham Business Journal - local interest publication profiling this winery. Local sources give undue weight to local topics. This isn't a claim of notability. WP:WINESOURCES and WP:WINERY both refer to profiles in local or regional publications as insufficient; this conclusion is derived from the official guideline WP:SIGCOV.
- WP:WINESOURCES and WP:WINERY are not currently policy or guidelines. Nowhere in SIGCOV does it mention that local sources do not contribute to notability. Significant coverage in an established business journal that is based in a state capital city is clearly a start toward notability according to current community derived policy. Camw (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a proposed policy, derived from existing policies and guidelines to clarify those guidelines in the context of wine. There is a tendency to dismiss the document because it is not "official", but I observe that those who dismiss it have so far failed to offer constructive criticism about the logic and rationale presented therein. As the only existing wine-related guideline derived from official guidelines, it is perfectly valid to refer to it in this discussion, not as an authoritative "law" but as a basis for debate. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:WINESOURCES and WP:WINERY are not currently policy or guidelines. Nowhere in SIGCOV does it mention that local sources do not contribute to notability. Significant coverage in an established business journal that is based in a state capital city is clearly a start toward notability according to current community derived policy. Camw (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Al.com - online Alabama news source, also a regional interest publication. The article isn't even about the winery. About 1/3 of it is devoted to the winery. Not a claim of notability.
- There is another article here from the same site reprinting an article from The Birmingham News that appears to focus this winery. Part of the article is hidden behind an archive that I don't have access to so I'm not sure how much more detail it goes into if any. Our article on The Birmingham News says it "is the principal daily newspaper for Birmingham, Alabama, United States, and the largest newspaper in Alabama." - yes it is going to have a focus on Alabama, the same way most newspapers based in any city would have articles aiming to interest their audience. Camw (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is why we don't have articles on local restaurants receiving only local coverage. Different standards should not apply to wineries. See my comment regarding the restaurant test below. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Different standards don't apply to wineries. If a restaurant has significant coverage in reliable sources meeting community guidelines then they will be included as well. Camw (talk) 00:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is why we don't have articles on local restaurants receiving only local coverage. Different standards should not apply to wineries. See my comment regarding the restaurant test below. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is another article here from the same site reprinting an article from The Birmingham News that appears to focus this winery. Part of the article is hidden behind an archive that I don't have access to so I'm not sure how much more detail it goes into if any. Our article on The Birmingham News says it "is the principal daily newspaper for Birmingham, Alabama, United States, and the largest newspaper in Alabama." - yes it is going to have a focus on Alabama, the same way most newspapers based in any city would have articles aiming to interest their audience. Camw (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Free tours, museums, and sites in America - a tourist guide, attempts to be comprehensive and therefore may include many non-notable attractions. Morgan Creek gets a mention among 60 or so other similar wineries and vineyards. A mention in a tour guidebook doesn't convey notability, just as restaurants aren't notable just because a tourist guide lists them. Per the official guideline WP:CORP, "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."
- 800alabama.com - another local-interest online publication. The winery gets a trivial 1-line mention. So do a couple others. I don't see how this is notable. Yes, the list was compiled by well-known chefs. This isn't even up to the level of a mere tasting note from a luminary such as Robert Parker, which doesn't make a wine notable (see WP:NOTWINE).
- Sweet Alabama Home - another local-interest publication, gives a trivial 1-line mention to this winery.
- All of this fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORP. The winery doesn't appear to be getting any more coverage than any other winery in the business. Unless something better can be found, my inclination, unfortunately, is still to delete. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Amatulic, I'll gladly take a weak claim of notability. The "trivial one-line mention"--well, all places there get a one-line mention (including Dreamland Bar-B-Que), that's the nature of the list, which was compiled by the Alabama Tourism Department, not exactly a "local-interest online publication". (And no, I'm not claiming it to be some national wine magazine.) The winery is locally notable, as a winery and as a tourist attraction, and I look forward to other editors weighing in with their opinions. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that it's locally notable (it's hard not to be when you're one of six wineries in the whole state). But that's the problem. It's the restaurant test. The coverage of this winery is typical of coverage within any service industry. Local restaurants will naturally be reviewed and written about in local papers, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia needs articles on them. Wine is a topic of global scope, of global interest, and the wine-related articles should be of global or at least national interest. I don't see this winery as having crossed that threshold. You brought up Dreamland Bar-B-Que, a chain of restaurants that received national media recognition. Dreamland has crossed that threshold of more-than-typical-local-restaurant coverage. If Robert Parker or other notable wine critic reviewed Morgan Creek's offerings, or the winery participated or won an award in an international competition, or if it was profiled in multiple national or international media sources, or the winemaker himself is notable in some way, or if the winery played a key role in the history of the region, or the winery is considered a pioneer in the industry, then there would be no question of notability. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Amatulic, I'll gladly take a weak claim of notability. The "trivial one-line mention"--well, all places there get a one-line mention (including Dreamland Bar-B-Que), that's the nature of the list, which was compiled by the Alabama Tourism Department, not exactly a "local-interest online publication". (And no, I'm not claiming it to be some national wine magazine.) The winery is locally notable, as a winery and as a tourist attraction, and I look forward to other editors weighing in with their opinions. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Young winery with no obvious signs of notability. Being listed in a wine guide (which only has national US coverage) doesn't make a winery established in "well-known" or notable enough for inclusion per WP:CORP or WP:WINETOPICS. Inclusion solely based on inclusion in extensive wine guides would go against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Tomas e (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Does not have sufficient coverage beyond what you average mom & pop restaurant get in the local/regional media. We would never let a restaurant article, whose only claim of notability is being included on a list of "100 Places to Eat in Alabama Before You Die", stay based on just that. There is no reason to let a winery article with a similarly weak claim of notability stay as well. AgneCheese/Wine 15:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per points raised by Milowent and Camw. Passes WP:Notability – it does have significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The coverage coming from a regional/statewide sources does not factor into general notability. Wikipedia:Notability (wine topics), which includes the subsections (WP:WINESOURCES), (WP:WINERY), (WP:RESTTEST), is not a guideline yet and may never be. Perhaps its authors should focus on getting it approved by the community as an official policy before using it here at AfD. Altairisfar 17:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While WP:WINETOPICS is not an official guideline, it serves as a valid argument, being a rational and logical interpretation of existing guidelines in the context of wine. Argue against the content of that document if you must, but simply stating "WP:WINETOPICS is not a guideline" isn't a valid argument to keep. And as for official guidelines, you don't get to pick and choose which ones you want. They all apply - particularly WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORP. Trivial one-line mentions in "regional/statewide sources" don't meet notability requirements. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I mentioned them because they were among your initial reasons to delete and you, along with Agne, are an author of it. Three of the sources discuss Morgan Creek in-depth and are not trivial one-line mentions. Altairisfar 18:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the problem. It's local coverage, no different than a local restaurant. We don't have restaurant articles on that basis, so why have a different standard for wineries? This winery has gotten no more coverage than would be expected in the wine business. To quote WP:CORP: "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." Wine is a topic of global scope. Local sources don't count. The regional sources don't even count, but even if they do, the coverage by regional sources is extremely weak. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I mentioned them because they were among your initial reasons to delete and you, along with Agne, are an author of it. Three of the sources discuss Morgan Creek in-depth and are not trivial one-line mentions. Altairisfar 18:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While WP:WINETOPICS is not an official guideline, it serves as a valid argument, being a rational and logical interpretation of existing guidelines in the context of wine. Argue against the content of that document if you must, but simply stating "WP:WINETOPICS is not a guideline" isn't a valid argument to keep. And as for official guidelines, you don't get to pick and choose which ones you want. They all apply - particularly WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORP. Trivial one-line mentions in "regional/statewide sources" don't meet notability requirements. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Significant coverage in regional reliable sources has been shown. These sources aren't a local town newspaper with limited distribution, as I said above, The Birmingham News article says it "is the principal daily newspaper for Birmingham, Alabama ... and the largest newspaper in Alabama.", with daily circulation of 145,000 people daily according to this - it clearly has a regional scope which satisfies the "at least regional" requirement of WP:CORP. Camw (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here we have a case of "the letter of the law" versus "the spirit of the law". This is why WP:CORP emphasized national and international coverage beyond regional, adding "at least" to regional almost as an afterthought. For a huge topic of global interest like wine, it seems obvious that "regional" isn't the minimum threshold. The guideline should be interpreted according to the global scope of the topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I don't agree on the need for global coverage. We have a plethora of articles on highways, train stations, bus stops, schools, 10th division English football clubs and so on - very few of which would have anything more than regional coverage at best. If there are enough reliable third party sources to verify the facts presented then the inclusion of the article is a net positive. Camw (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here we have a case of "the letter of the law" versus "the spirit of the law". This is why WP:CORP emphasized national and international coverage beyond regional, adding "at least" to regional almost as an afterthought. For a huge topic of global interest like wine, it seems obvious that "regional" isn't the minimum threshold. The guideline should be interpreted according to the global scope of the topic. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 View Askewniverse. Shimeru (talk) 07:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Banky Edwards (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)
Character has less screen time than the film's main stars, both their articles have been deleted due to notability concerns.[3][4] Character is not a gay icon (his supposed homosexuality is never discussed in the film), nor does the article explain any role he plays in LGBT studies (just merely recounts plot details). Ryan4314 (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Neelix (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to View Askewniverse. I did some research but could not find anything to really detail this character in its own article. If there is anything to be found, it is probably very piecemeal and can be included at the article for View Askewniverse. Erik (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Erik. Not notable enough for stand-alone, and is mostly WP:PLOT. American Eagle (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with List of characters of View Askewniverse--Sodabottle (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Erik & American Eagle. --Peppagetlk 16:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Character found in multiple movies, and mentioned in 50 different places on Google news, all reviews of the films the character has been in. Dream Focus 22:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Banky Edwards isn't mentioned anywhere on Google News. I just searched and there were no results. Neelix (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google News only covers the last 30 days. You need to do Google News Archive Search; this is what he is referring to. The results are only plot summary-related or cast-related mentions; there is no significant coverage about the character besides what he does in the film. Erik (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention the "multiple films" are actually just "2", the second one being a cameo amongst many other cameos. Ryan4314 (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Google News only covers the last 30 days. You need to do Google News Archive Search; this is what he is referring to. The results are only plot summary-related or cast-related mentions; there is no significant coverage about the character besides what he does in the film. Erik (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Banky Edwards isn't mentioned anywhere on Google News. I just searched and there were no results. Neelix (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Userfied. Guy (Help!) 18:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mohammed sanduk (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 might just be very badly written, but it lacks independent sources and contains some pretty blatant WP:OR. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 23:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Subject is a Visiting Fellow at the University of Surrey U.K. Although a person of wide interests he makes little impact on WP:Prof criteria. One hit on Google Scholar but no cites. Looks like a delete at present. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete Does not meet criteria like Xxanthippe said. MiRroar (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The subject is a physicist and the article makes at least 2 claims to notability that, if true, would represent remarkable advances in this science: (1) an extension of the theory of Bohm diffusion, and (2) an extension of the wave model of a particle. The source provided for the first claim is an obscure journal and this paper appears in none of the usual mainstream indexing services, e.g. WoS and GS. (Long parenthetical remark: this paper was also added as reference for Bohm diffusion in that article by an anonymous editor IP 82.2.247.35 in Guildford, the subject's hometown, and an apparently WP:SPA account, IP 86.2.254.132 also from Guildford, has also edited only this article and the Bohm diffusion article. If the Sanduk article is eventually deleted, the reference should be removed from the Bohm diffusion article, as it is apparently not recognized by mainstream physicists.) There are 2 sources for the second claim: and article in Apeiron and an uploaded paper in arXiv. Apeiron is a well-known "alternative science" journal and is not regarded as part of the mainstream science world, for example it is not indexed by WoS. The arxiv source, though more credible, is still not a peer-reviewed contribution. It's been uploaded there for about a year and there's no indication in the article that this paper has been submitted to a mainstream physics journal. On balance, there's no indication whatsoever that the physics community has embraced either of these two ideas. In terms of a more routine check, WoS shows 1 paper with 9 citations from 1992 (h-index = 1). This appears to be something related to what the article says was his PhD topic 20 years ago. It does not appear that he is a notable physicist in the least. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete, sorry, but per above. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 British Academy Film Awards. Redirect as per WP:CRYSTAL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 64th British Academy Film Awards (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)
Unrefferenced. Violates the Corollary of WP:CRYSTALHAMMER. Not notable per WP:GNG (yet). The event will be notable once the date, host, and other information is available, and also when the event occurs. Also applicable is WP:TIND. Gosox(55)(55) 21:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to British Academy Film Awards until such a time - probably early 2011 - when an actual article can be made. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to British Academy Film Awards as this article is premature. When the event actually takes place allow recreation. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect The article is essentially a placeholder as it stands, but could be useful as a redirect. Howan (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per above voters. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 11:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spriggan (manga). except Spriggans which can be redirected Black Kite 00:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ARCAM 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)
A RS search for reliable sources turns up nothing more then brief mentions as part of a plot description of the overall fictional series. This is insufficient to pass WP:NOTE for a fictional subject. The article is just a recompiled a plot summary with a possibility of containing original research in the form of synthesis of primary sources.
I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reasons:
- ARCAM Private Army (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Spriggans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Trident Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- COSMOS (Spriggan) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- List of minor Spriggan organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
—Farix (t | c) 15:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 15:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 15:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Should they be noted in the main page? Only probable reason is Spriggan never got much momentum besides Europe and parts of Asia. Ominae (talk) 16:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment They are already briefly covered in the main article, so there is nothing to merge. And even that coverage may not be necessary. —Farix (t | c) 16:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails WP:N. – allen四names 10:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Spriggans, at the least, strikes me as a viable search term and worth redirecting instead. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps as a redirect to Spriggan as its plural form. —Farix (t | c) 18:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. Ominae (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps as a redirect to Spriggan as its plural form. —Farix (t | c) 18:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These do not pass WP:N. Coverage in the main article is sufficient for a general reader's understanding of the work, so merge is not necessary. As discussed above, redirect Spriggans to Spriggan as a plausible search term, delete ARCAM Private Army, Trident Corporation, COSMOS (Spriggan), and List of minor Spriggan organizations. I am waffling on ARCAM Corporation, as there are hints it is tightly enough associated with the work as to be a possible search term. As such, because there is doubt, it's best to go with inclusivity and redirect (rather than delete) to Spriggan. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/merge Tho we are meant for a general reader, that general reader will be one with a special interest in quite a variety of things, , and anything short of the very full detail of a fansite is appropriate. The default should me to merge articles such as this, and the sort of article that should be kept and merged to , is the List of minor organizations. Trying to delete a combination article like that isa desire not justto cut back on inappropriate detail, but remove even basic idenitification information. DGG ( talk ) 01:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Spriggan (manga). The information could be relevant and useful within the series, but it's too limited for its own article. Howan (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Spriggan (manga). Edward321 (talk) 15:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And exactly what should be merged? Because I don't think there is anything to merge as the main article already contains the necessary information about these fictional organizations, though it should be presented inside the plot summary. —Farix (t | c) 21:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Earl W. Stafford (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 biography in my opinion. See WP:BIO. bender235 (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 20:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. SilverserenC 20:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep What about it doesn't establish notability? The references just need to actually be linked into the reference section and the entire article should be cleaned up, but he appears notable to me. SilverserenC 20:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The subject is a notable philanthropist. Article needs a lot of cleanup. I will edit some. Hopefully that will prevent deletion. rdh2010 —Preceding undated comment added 03:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment With the latest and very thorough edits, I believe this article is ready to be recommended for assessment and should minimally recieve a B rating. Do we all concur? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.198.152.66 (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the minimal participation at the moment, I doubt it. Its still up for deletion at the moment, and this probably needs to be relisted for another week.--Milowent (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep just needs a lot of cleanup. Certainly seems notable enough. Howan (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of bar and grill restaurants (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)
Arbitrary list; violates WP:NOT - Wikipedia should not be used for arbitrary lists of "stuff" mhking (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Right now the list includes only chains, not individual outlets (that said, I did not check size and notability of each entry). This limitation of scope make possible comprehensive, not arbitrary coverage at least for North America. Pity, the whole set of "lists of chains" (Category:Lists of restaurants) is in poor shape, so redirect (to where?) is not a good choice. NVO (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is absolutly no reason that this article should be deleted because it is not a list of just chains. It tells information about those chains before the list of chains. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Queenfan13 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, overbroad, arbitrary, and pointless. Is this article supposed to be about chains only? It doesn't say that, and limiting the content in that way would make it even more arbitrary. As it is, I don't know of any definable criterion that makes something a "bar and grill." Just having a bar and a grill located on the premises? That'll include Italian restaurants, Japanese steakhouses, and all kinds of other stuff. Or does it only count if a place calls itself "Bar and Grill"? Then why are Longhorn Steakhouse and, of all things, Olive Garden on the list? This is as unmanageable a concept as List of dive bars would be. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think that the article was supposed to be about chains only. Surprisingly, we don't have an article called Bar and grill, although that term is about as trendy as having a neon sign that says "Fine Food". Generally, bar and grill describes thousands of individual restaurants (rather than chains) that have, as Glen notes, a bar and a grill, and in some cases serve beer and cooked food without the benefit of either a bar or a grill. Although Applebee's tries desperately to package itself as a "neighborhood bar and grill", most of the restaurants on the list don't. I won't say "keep" because it's simply an unsourced list of blue words. Mandsford (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a case of putting the cart before the horse; make the article on Bar and grill first, source it appropriately, and then assess whether a list article can be created. Abductive (reasoning) 05:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Adolescents and cartoon violence (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 non-neutral essay aparrently representing the author's point of view. It was previously created in the same form at Violence in cartoons and changed by another editor to a redirect. I agree with that editor but in this case it's not a useful redirect so propose deletion. Bringing here for wider discussion. I42 (talk) 20:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Its one sided but at least it's cited. The other side may be difficult to find and even more difficult to source. Should be tagged with POV concerns and improved. Move was done to better title the article based on its content and encourage neutrality.RadioFan (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Cited or not, it smacks of original research, and includes many statements not backed up by any references at all. If it stays one-sided, then it should go. (Where's my 10 lb. hammer when I need it?) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are published references in the article. The only neutrality problem which I generally concern myself about is the article being factually correct, which to me it doesn't look like there is a problem with it, apart from the opinions. Minimac (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Cobalt, I'm right here. Sourced as it is, this is just cherry-picking information for the purpose of synthesis. Furthermore, it reads like a how-to and I'm convinced that most of the sources are unreliable -- what journalistic cred does source 3/4 have? What about #5? That one looks like a personal website. Source #6 also doesn't look reliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 23:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep' significant subject, and references available. NPOV concerns are to be addressed by editing, not deletion DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete/Userfy: Delete from mainspace and userfy or incubate it. Should not be in the mainspace like this, goes against numerous policies and guidelines, too many to name. It's a valid topic, just not in this form. If it can't be userfied then delete until another editor can follow guidelines on making articles. —Mike Allen 02:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - please note that Violence in Cartoons has also been created by an account that may be the same person. Though the topic is notable I think the various pages should, at least, be cleaned up and preferably drawn together. I have also moved Violence in Cartoons to Violence in cartoons, over the existing page, as a better heading case but I have merged the histories so that the previous content remains available. TerriersFan (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG - the amount of sourcing available means that the original research problems are fixable. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sinem Saniye (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)
My speedy deletion tag was removed with the claim that her album is sold on amazon. That is no proof that she passes WP:BAND, she should have been deleted, not left standing, unless reliable sources as to notability are provided. Woogee (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can someone tell me how the hell this doesn't meet A7? Simply releasing an album isn't enough to dodge A7, unlike someone keeps trying to tell me on IRC. Any moron can release an album. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, speedy delete. Hairhorn (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Almost speedied this myself after checking the article and a quick search, but checking the article history suggests that there may be something. Enlighten us, please? - 2/0 (cont.) 23:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- MuZemike is under the false assumption that releasing an album is enough to dodge A7. He's wrong baby wrong baby wrong. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I would think this would be an A7 - no reliable sources, doesn't say if the album is on a notable label. Clubmarx (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I know that standards for notability/albums probably wont allow her to stay here, but ive added what i could find to help establish notability if possible. the album is actually quite fantastic (found it by accident at a thrift store), and she appears to be starting a tour this year. perhaps we can keep it a bit to see if notability is about to hit. ill accept if it doesnt make notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - since my position has been misrepresented on my talk page, let me explain. I declined the speedy deletion because, in my view, it was not appropriate. The threshold for declining a speedy is considerably lower than for establishing notability. I did not say that the subject meets WP:Band nor that she meets general notability guidelines.In addition to launching an album, available on Amazon, she has secured a number of awards, as now added to the page, is having a wide US tour, and there are several references here. In my view, though this may not be sufficient to establish notability, it is enough to avoid a speedy. Speedy deletions take place without community consensus and should only be enacted in the clearest cases. This is echoed in the guidelines which state "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases". Where there is any doubt then an XFD discussion is appropriate. Finally, if anyone disagrees then the way forward is for the page to be retagged to look for an admin who might see things differently. TerriersFan (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.
- This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries
YES- Sinem has been written about in TimeOUT NY, Global Rhythm Magazine, The Village Voice.
9. Has won or placed in a major music competition. YES- Sinem Saniye won the *Grand Prize* in the International John Lennon Songwriting Competition. Started by Yoko Ono. Nearly 20,000 people applied.
In fact here are Sinem's songwriting awards list:
2009 Indi Music TV "Artist of the Season" 2008 Song of the Year (supporter of VH-1 Save the Music) Finalist 2008 Billboard World Song Contest Winner 2008 Mountain Stage NewSong Contest Finalist (NorthEast region) 2008 UK Songwriting Contest Finalist 2007 Lennon Award Winner 2006 *Grand Prize Winner* John Lennon Songwriting Competition 2005 International Songwriting Competition
10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. SINEM's music on rotation on Delta Airlines, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baxoy (talk • contribs) 21:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Unambiguous copyright infringement (G12). decltype
(talk) 21:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mr. Bear (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 bear, looks to have been created as a joke. Woogee (talk) 20:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable TV teddy bear. Hard to tell if it was created as a joke or by someone with a "Bear Passion," as the linked site indicates; either way, this isn't even worth a redirect to Full House. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just discovered it's a copyright violation. I've tagged accordingly. Woogee (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael White (bassist) (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 article loosely claims notability by saying that the subject has been compared to very notable artists (unreferenced). I can find no articles covering the subject (went through pages and pages here, here, and here. The subject fails all points of WP:MUSIC (doesn't claim to fit any and I can't prove that he does). None of the bands mentioned seem to be notable and either do their label's. Does not satisfy any point in WP:ARTIST either. The only thing that kept me from thinking this was a pure hoax was the mention of being in the band Mojo Rib which I did find info on (Mojo Rib is also not notable). OlYellerTalktome 20:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per my nomination. OlYellerTalktome 21:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. Doesn't meet notability criteria and hasn't made any impact in the music world.--Karljoos (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and comment Per nom. The nominator doesn't get a second vote as you have essentially voted when nominating this article. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 11:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would understand your concern if it appeared that I was attempting to deceive. As I assume all Wikipedia editors can read, it's obvious that my !vote wasn't an attempt to fluff numbers. I am concerned though, that you may think that AfDs are a vote. Please see WP:NOTVOTE if you weren't aware. Also, if you would like to help other editors by pointing out their mistakes, pointing out the exact location of the policy/guildeline with a link is more useful. For instance, I can't find where WP:AFD mentions that nominators should note !vote. Please advise with the location. OlYellerTalktome 15:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What's the point of nominating if you are just going to vote in favor of deletion in a separate instance? If you look at the statistics of an AfD, then you will see your name in the delete grouping by default as everyone who looks at a deletion discussion automatically, for the most part, comes to the conclusion that you're vote is delete. It defeats the purpose of the nomination. Voting a second time does in fact make it look like you are trying inflate the numbers when you don't have to. All the other people who have chimed in have went in favor of deletion. So your second vote is entirely useless. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 07:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So you admit that you go around stating your opinion as policy? OlYellerTalktome 12:39, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nope. You are assuming. Plus "voting" as second time is just asinine. If you look at the vast majority of AfD discussions, you will see very low percentage of nominators "vote" a second time. It is just WP:COMMONSENSE to not "vote" a second time. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad we had this chat. You've made Wikipedia such a better place and saved so much time. Note the sarcasm. I won't be discussing this matter with you any further. As is your right, feel free to plaster your feelings everywhere.OlYellerTalktome 23:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 08:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of supercentenarians from the Americas (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)
Too similar to List of supercentenarians from the United States; Page is also not similar to other articles, which are organized by continent or by nation, NOT by multiple continents put together. The name is also confusing.Tim198 (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is just listcruft. Other lists are by continent or nation; putting two continents together doesn't accomplish much. It's also true that the vast majority of the cases are from the USA, and most of the rest from Canada.Ryoung122 22:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete continent/nation makes more sense. People who need information in this article can synthesize it themselves from "continent" articles. Rklawton (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This could easily be called "list of U.S. supercentenarians some people from Ecuador, Puerto Rico and Canada". I'm not sure why we have to organize old people by nationality, or why we have a bunch of lists called "List of _________ supercentenarians" (Australian supercentenarians, Belgian supercentenarians, Canadian supercentenarians, etc.) but not a plain old list called List of supercentenarians. It's a blue link, but only as a redirect to Casey's Top 100 old folks ("Moving up a notch from #34 to #33 is Neva Morris. When asked the secret of her longevity, Neva said, 'Because I haven't died yet.' Now, on with the countdown." Mandsford (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. However, given the requests for a redirect to preserve the editing history to facilitate the improvement of other articles, I'll simply redirect to Maryland highway system, which appears to be the primary article that introduces and links to List of Interstate highways in Maryland, List of U.S. highways in Maryland, and List of Maryland state highways. — Scientizzle 13:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Interstate and U.S. highways in Maryland (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)
Redundant to List of Interstate Highways in Maryland and List of U.S. Highways in Maryland. There are three basic classes of state highway in the United States: Interstates, US Highways and other state highways. This list cherry picked two of the three classes, a flawed basis for inclusion at the list's inception. A recent overhaul of state highways list articles for Maryland has created separate lists based on classification. Imzadi1979 (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
provided the sources get transferred.Nom raises a good point in that this list is flawed by glomming together two things that are better off separated. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Delete now was redundant to the other lists. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, but split the content into the other two articles. The combined article is redundant now, but the individual tables and parts of the intro are done better than in the two separate articles. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 22:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No longer needed as list has been split. ---Dough4872 02:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - If the list has been split, this should have been redirected to the main article for numbered highways in Maryland as part of the process.-Jeff (talk) 03:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. Merging elements of the introduction into the intros on the two other list articles may not be a bad idea, though. -- LJ ↗ 06:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to one of the other articles mentioned in order to preserve edit history, which could be valuable. Dew Kane (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename and convert to a disambiguation page. Between 20 January 2006 and 15 August 2008 this article was a the title List of numbered highways in Maryland - a logical search term (it got 572 hits in March alone, more than double the 277 the present title got). The present page should be moved back to that title (with a redirect) to preserve editing history, incomming links, bookmarks, etc. and then converted into a disambiguation page linking to the various lists of Interstates, US highways, etc in Maryland. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mia Talerico (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 child actress who, according to IMDb, has been on one episode of a TV show. Severely fails WP:ENT; PROD contested without comment. Glenfarclas (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An article celebrating her first role? Waaaay too soon for this article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — The article does not pass WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Gosox(55)(55) 21:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep No, she probably doesn't pass WP:ENT, but I would argue keep by invoking a bit of WP:IAR. She has been cast in the title role of a Disney Channel sitcom along the lines of Hannah Montana and Wizards of Waverly Place, and the entire show revolves around her character (only one episode appears on IMDB because only one episode has aired). She passes GNG, though she didn't when this AFD started; Articles are being published now because her tv series premieres on Sunday. (Sources: LA times, NY Daily News, Pittsburgh Post-Gazzette (Unfortunately no interviews. she just 10 months old ;])). And it is very likely that, either this season or the next, Disney will film a TV movie around the series (as they have for all their other series) or have her guest star in one of their other series.
- That said, the article is somewhat of a vandalism target and I'm uncertain about about creating a BLP on someone who may not even be able to speak. So, while those previous reasons aren't reasons to delete and I can see why the article could be kept, I'm willing to wait until she gets a second role. liquidluck✽talk 20:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It has published sources, which does establish notability. I think the only problem with them is that we have to wikify the references. Minimac (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep April 4 has passed an presumably the show has been aired. I'll confess I did not watch....but that fact, combined with the sources, make her notable. Whether she was actually notable last week, before the show aired, is an interesting academic questions for Wikipedians, but not particularly relevant here. Vartanza (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails WP:ENT by a long shot. Her career simply isn't developed enough. Petitscel (talk) 21:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. On the strength of the improvements so far; objections appear to have been addressed. Shimeru (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network 21
- Network TwentyOne (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)
Summary of !votes
[edit]- Any omissions are accidental and emphasize the need for this summary; feel free to edit this list, but only discuss below
Delete/ Will Beback / Withdrawing my "delete" !vote, due to the enormous improvements to the article from what it was when nominated- Strong Keep / Insider201283 / Working to improve the article and cull cruft sources
- Delete / Shot info / per WP:CORP
- Delete / Financeguy222 / per WP:CORP
- Delete / Smerdis of Tlön / per WP:SPAM
- Delete / BruceGrubb / per WP:CORP, WP:N, and WP:SPAM
- Delete / Cirt / per WP:Vanispamcruftisement
- Keep (or Merge) / Willscrlt / Adequate secondary sources now establish notability per WP:CORP and WP:N; claims of WP:SPAM not supported
Discussion
[edit]This business does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Most of the references are to blogs, press releases, and other non-independent sources. Some of the sources or proposed sources do not mention the organization by name, are merely about people related to the company, or make only minor mentions of it. The article is not based on reliable secondary sources. Every mention of it is in connection to Amway, and it could simply be mentioned in that article as one of several distributor support networks. Will Beback talk 18:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Will Beback talk 18:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While the article as currently written is poorly sourced, the topic itself DOES meet WP:CORP, as evidenced by the numerous independent RS sources I have collated for use so far (see User:Insider201283/Network_21_-_references). The article had been little touched for a year until an edit war started a couple of weeks ago and it has been under protection the past week so I've been unable to make improvements. To be honest I'm a little hesistant to put the time in if it's going to be deleted! While the topic may be suited to a subsection of the Amway article my concern is that it will make that article unwieldy as there are numerous other independent support companies and affiliated distributor organisations that may be notable (eg Dexter Yager's Internet Services, Bill Britt, Schwarz Organisation and others). With international coverage in books, magazines, and academia it would seem clear that Network TwentyOne is notable. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, the article on Bill Britt, who runs a comparable network, has been deleted three times. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Britt, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Britt 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Britt (2nd nomination). So it has been firmly established that that topic is not notable, pending new developments of course. Will Beback talk 19:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the Britt network isn't really comparable, being primarily limited to India and the US and nowhere near as large, nevertheless as noted by some in the most recent afD it verges on notable. If someone wanted to make the effort to dig up sources it might be.([5][6][7]). I actually voted to delete it, but that was based primarily on the references being used on the article at the time and nobody seemed too interested in putting the work in to fixing it. It doesn't appear to have anything like the range of potential sources I've found so far for the N21 article though. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As suggested on the talk page of the last deletion of this article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Network 21, perhaps an article like "Amway motivational organizations" could cover Britt, N21, and the others you list above. Will Beback talk 21:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a possible optin, but that title doesn't work - it's (a) POV, having been coined by "critics" and implying all they do is "motivate", and (b) I don't think there's any RS sources that use that term. Indeed I'm not sure there's any RS sources at all that consider them "as a package" so to speak. I haven't read them with that in my mind though. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As suggested on the talk page of the last deletion of this article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Network 21, perhaps an article like "Amway motivational organizations" could cover Britt, N21, and the others you list above. Will Beback talk 21:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the Britt network isn't really comparable, being primarily limited to India and the US and nowhere near as large, nevertheless as noted by some in the most recent afD it verges on notable. If someone wanted to make the effort to dig up sources it might be.([5][6][7]). I actually voted to delete it, but that was based primarily on the references being used on the article at the time and nobody seemed too interested in putting the work in to fixing it. It doesn't appear to have anything like the range of potential sources I've found so far for the N21 article though. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- First, the standard for notability is not "numerous independent RS sources", it is "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". 50 IMDB entries of being 3rd assistant carpenter on a movie doesn't establish notability. I've spot-checked Insider201283 extensive list, and all but one of the 8 I looked at were definitely either not "significant", "reliable", "secondary sources", or "independent". For example, one reference was an event listing for a public concert in Manila that was sponsored by the company; it was not a "significant" reference, and was almost certainly press release transcription. Another reference was to a doctoral thesis that contained one sentence about Network 21, as an example, and also included Network 21 in a table of major lines of sponsorship within Amway; it certainly was not "significant" and I'm pretty sure that theses are not "secondary sources", but are primary.
- The one spot-checked "source" that couldn't be struck for trivially failing the notability standard on its face was Empire of Freedom, a book about Amway. If that book is independent of Amway, then it could be a decent reference for the Network 21 article. However, given that the book is a popular giveaway by Amway recruiters, I question "independent" and "reliable"; it appears to be a hagiography. On the other hand, I don't know for sure and am not going to take the time to find out definitively. Y'all have fun. Studerby (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that review. Regarding Empire of Freedom, ISBN 0761506756: I obtained a copy from the library. It's a small, thin book with large type. Its publisher, Prima Publishing, was founded by a successful Amway salesman, Ben Dominitz.[8] Of the citations that Insider lists on his page, several of them (pages 59, 101-103, 109, and 197) do not mention N21 by name and refer instead to various personnel who are presumably associated with it. While those indirect mentions would be acceptable to use as a source, they don't establish the notability of the entity. Of the direct mentions, about half simply mention N21 as being one of several similar networks. That mostly leaves just two passages, pages 6-8 (really just one page) and 147-148. As I said before, the pages don't have much text on them. In any case, there's no indication in the book of notability beyond the Amway world. Will Beback talk 22:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Will, you are incorrect. Page 59 is explicitly about the Dornans, who are earlier identified as the founders of Network 21, and how they got involved with Amway - clearly pertinent to the topic. pp101-103 refer to Paul & Linda Agus, Network 21 leaders in Indonesia, and on p102, contrary to your claims, explicitly mentions they moved to Indonesia to "build their business and spearhead the Network 21 organization's efforts in that country". Page 109 refers to Mitch & Diedre Sala's network and while it doesn't refer to Network 21 directly, the Sala's are identified as being involved with the creation of Network 21 on p.103. p.197 is about Robert Angkasa and the Indonesian launch and again, contrary to your claim, explicitly mentions Network 21 - "while managing inaugural activities in Indonesia for the Network 21 organization". He is also mentioned on p.103 as being involved in it's beginnings. Given that Network 21 is the people involved in it, I'm not quite sure why you think the people involved with it aren't pertinent to the article! As for the publisher, I wasn't aware of the founders history (assuming the SPS you have is correct), however it was founded in 1984 and by the time Empire of Freedom was published in 1997 it had over 130 employees, was publishing over 200 books a year, and was in partnership with Random House, a major publisher who later took them over completely [9][10]. There is no connection I'm aware of with Network 21, and perhaps more importantly the author, James W Robinson, is independent of both Network 21 and Amway and is an established author [11] --Insider201283 (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're correct that Network 21 is mentioned once on page 102. However I don't think it can be said that pages 101-103 concern Network 21. As for passages that discuss people who belong to N21 without mentioning that network by name, those may help establish the notability of those people but they do not establish the notability of N21. In that example, the pages concern Paul and Linda Agus, who are not important enough to the topic to have been mentioned in the article. Will Beback talk 23:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Will, p101-103 is by definition about Network 21 if it is about Paul and Linda Agus - it's like arguing a 3 page article on Steve Jobs launching the iPod isn't about Apple since it only mentions Apple on one page! Furthermore, your claim about it not being notable because it's not already in the WP article is circular and disingenous - considering you know the article has been locked for editing while these sources have been getting collated for a rewrite. Oh, and the comment about type size is pretty silly - it's a larger, hard cover book. I just did one quick count and the first page I looked at had 297 words - not exactly "not much text" --Insider201283 (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jobs is the co-founder and CEO of Apple. What is the Aguses' role in N21? They do not appear to be mentioned anywhere on the N21 website.[12] Will Beback talk 00:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You said you have the book Empire of Freedom, I suggest you read it. Skimming it is clearly not providing you with context and understanding of the topic. As it (and other sources) state, Paul & Linda Agus, along with others such as Robert Angkasa, lead Network 21 Indonesia and spearheaded the launch of operations there. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find any mention of the Aguses on the N21 website. If they are the N21 equivalent of Apple Computer's Steve Jobs then I'd expect some information about them on the company's website. As I wrote above, N21 is only mention briefly in this book. Will Beback talk 01:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, read the book you claim to have. It explicitly states, on page 102, that Paul & Linda Agus moved to Indonesia to "spearhead the Network 21 organizations efforts in that country. pp102-103 are about that effort.--Insider201283 (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find any mention of the Aguses on the N21 website. If they are the N21 equivalent of Apple Computer's Steve Jobs then I'd expect some information about them on the company's website. As I wrote above, N21 is only mention briefly in this book. Will Beback talk 01:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You said you have the book Empire of Freedom, I suggest you read it. Skimming it is clearly not providing you with context and understanding of the topic. As it (and other sources) state, Paul & Linda Agus, along with others such as Robert Angkasa, lead Network 21 Indonesia and spearheaded the launch of operations there. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jobs is the co-founder and CEO of Apple. What is the Aguses' role in N21? They do not appear to be mentioned anywhere on the N21 website.[12] Will Beback talk 00:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Will, p101-103 is by definition about Network 21 if it is about Paul and Linda Agus - it's like arguing a 3 page article on Steve Jobs launching the iPod isn't about Apple since it only mentions Apple on one page! Furthermore, your claim about it not being notable because it's not already in the WP article is circular and disingenous - considering you know the article has been locked for editing while these sources have been getting collated for a rewrite. Oh, and the comment about type size is pretty silly - it's a larger, hard cover book. I just did one quick count and the first page I looked at had 297 words - not exactly "not much text" --Insider201283 (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're correct that Network 21 is mentioned once on page 102. However I don't think it can be said that pages 101-103 concern Network 21. As for passages that discuss people who belong to N21 without mentioning that network by name, those may help establish the notability of those people but they do not establish the notability of N21. In that example, the pages concern Paul and Linda Agus, who are not important enough to the topic to have been mentioned in the article. Will Beback talk 23:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Studerby, the Manila news reference was not to a "public concert" and given it was a private event and there are no indications N21 has ever done a press release about their conferences (and to my knowledge and talking to employees, they don't) I'm not sure where you get the idea it was a press release from? Anyway to me, the clearly "significant" sources are Empire of Freedom, the Sun Daily South Africa article Life will never be the same on an Network 21 philanthropic activity in South Africa (mentions N21 by name, not Network of Caring btw), the Christian Businessman article (The Secret to My Success) on the Dornans and Network of Caring (the name for n21's philanthropic activities), the Maximise Your Strength book, which has at least a page or two on the N21 business strategies (p.192-193), the Indonesian business magazine Warta ekonomi: mingguan berita ekonomi & bisnis, Volume 9, Issues 9-16 which from the snippet google shows seems to cover that also and one would also assume that a published academic journal article part-titled "a case study of Amway and Network 21" would unarguably be "significant coverage". There is also the extensive World Vision coverage covered on the talk page. I posted it on RS/N for comment, there was none. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We've already agreed that the Christian Businessman does not mention N21 even once. World Vision does not appear to be independent since the owners of N21 are its largest benefactors. For the purposes of establishing the notability of this company we need source which have significant coverage of it by name, not just ones which mention it in passing or in a directory or announcements of meetings, or ones which only discuss people or entities connected to it. I suggest we move further discussion of the sources to the AfD or article talk page to avoid clogging this page any more. Will Beback talk 00:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Christian Businessman mentions the Dornan's business expanding internationally, this is a synonym for "Network 21" as other sources such as Empire of Freedom make clear. The article also explicitly mentions Network of Caring which is Network 21, again as made clear by both the Network of Caring and Network 21 homepages.[13] [14] At this stage your effectively claiming, contrary to WP:NOTOR, that articles on an organisation don't count if they're using a different name for the organisation than the article title (or refer to one of the organisations major activities) and that pages about an organisations members activities as a part of that organisation don't count as being about the organisation - even when the source explictly states they are! Furthermore, the "owners of N21" are NOT World Visions largest benefactors, I've no idea where you got that idea from. Network of Caring - which describes the philanthropic activities of the network of N21 affiliated IBOs as a whole - is World Visions largest single corporate donation group. It's much as if Microsoft recommended all their employees donate to World Vision under an effort entitled "MicroCaring!" It's not Microsoft or Bill Gates donating, it's a network of individuals under a banner. Furthermore, Network of Caring's donations to World Vision may be the largest single group - but the total is a fraction of a percent of World Visions total revenues. I'd further note that you have also, more than once, mischaracterized or completely misstated the information in Empire of Freedom and I would ask that you take more care in the future. This discussion and information is about the sources and is relevant to this page. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand by my comments. Now let's let uninvolved editors give their views. Will Beback talk 01:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You stand by your comments that various pages in Empire of Freedom do not mention Network 21 when they clearly do? You stand by your claim that the founders of Network 21, Jim & Nancy Dornan, are World Visions largest benefactors? Do you have any evidence at all to support that claim? Do you stand by your claim that The Christian Businessman when talking about Network of Caring is not talking about Network 21, even though both Network of Caring and Network 21 say they are effectively one and the same? Will, you are actively misleading other editors. If anyone has queries about the Empire of Freedom book, please PM me and I will endeavour to provide scans of the relevant pages. --Insider201283 (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the pages you refer to in E of F do not mention N21 by name. (BTW, I have the paperback version.) The Dornans, or N21, or some related entity are the largest benefactors of World Vision, per the article, so it is of dubious value as an independent source, and even if it weren't it's hard to imagine that World Vision has a reputation for being a reliable source. The Christian Businessman article is not about N21, which is the article we're talking about. If you'd like to write an article about the "Network of Caring" then we can discuss its notability. I suggest that further discussion of sources should be held on a talk page. Will Beback talk 02:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You have listed pages of Empire of Freedom claiming N21 was not named there when they were - though it may be because of differences in editions, I have a hard cover version. So far our page numbers seem to be matching reasonably well. However this is a ridiculous standard. The book makes clear it's talking about Network 21 on one page, just because the actual term doesn't appear on the next page does not mean it's suddenly talking about something else. Furthermore, AGAIN, the Christian Businessman article IS about Network 21. It explictly talks about the Dornan expanding their Amway business internationally with their associates. The dates, countries, and descriptions all match what other sources say about Network 21 - which they describe as the Dornan's business launching internationally! Similar it talks about Network of Caring, which other sources explictly start is an activity of Network 21. I again refer you to WP:NOTOR - Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources. Articles should follow the naming conventions in selecting the heading under which the combined material is presented.--Insider201283 (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Forgot to mention re World Vision - as I've stated before I listed it on RS/N - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_60#World_Vision_as_an_RS where it received no commentary. As I pointed out there Google News has more than a dozen media references citing World Vision in the last month (march 2010) alone. Google scholar reports 58 occurrences of the phrases "according to World Vision" or "World Vision reports", including in many peer-reviewed papers. There are nearly 300 references that cite http://www.worldvision.org [20], again including many peer-reviewed papers. WP:RS states How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. So it shouldn't be hard at all to "imagine" World Vision has a reputation as a reliable source. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of the pages you refer to in E of F do not mention N21 by name. (BTW, I have the paperback version.) The Dornans, or N21, or some related entity are the largest benefactors of World Vision, per the article, so it is of dubious value as an independent source, and even if it weren't it's hard to imagine that World Vision has a reputation for being a reliable source. The Christian Businessman article is not about N21, which is the article we're talking about. If you'd like to write an article about the "Network of Caring" then we can discuss its notability. I suggest that further discussion of sources should be held on a talk page. Will Beback talk 02:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You stand by your comments that various pages in Empire of Freedom do not mention Network 21 when they clearly do? You stand by your claim that the founders of Network 21, Jim & Nancy Dornan, are World Visions largest benefactors? Do you have any evidence at all to support that claim? Do you stand by your claim that The Christian Businessman when talking about Network of Caring is not talking about Network 21, even though both Network of Caring and Network 21 say they are effectively one and the same? Will, you are actively misleading other editors. If anyone has queries about the Empire of Freedom book, please PM me and I will endeavour to provide scans of the relevant pages. --Insider201283 (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand by my comments. Now let's let uninvolved editors give their views. Will Beback talk 01:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Christian Businessman mentions the Dornan's business expanding internationally, this is a synonym for "Network 21" as other sources such as Empire of Freedom make clear. The article also explicitly mentions Network of Caring which is Network 21, again as made clear by both the Network of Caring and Network 21 homepages.[13] [14] At this stage your effectively claiming, contrary to WP:NOTOR, that articles on an organisation don't count if they're using a different name for the organisation than the article title (or refer to one of the organisations major activities) and that pages about an organisations members activities as a part of that organisation don't count as being about the organisation - even when the source explictly states they are! Furthermore, the "owners of N21" are NOT World Visions largest benefactors, I've no idea where you got that idea from. Network of Caring - which describes the philanthropic activities of the network of N21 affiliated IBOs as a whole - is World Visions largest single corporate donation group. It's much as if Microsoft recommended all their employees donate to World Vision under an effort entitled "MicroCaring!" It's not Microsoft or Bill Gates donating, it's a network of individuals under a banner. Furthermore, Network of Caring's donations to World Vision may be the largest single group - but the total is a fraction of a percent of World Visions total revenues. I'd further note that you have also, more than once, mischaracterized or completely misstated the information in Empire of Freedom and I would ask that you take more care in the future. This discussion and information is about the sources and is relevant to this page. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We've already agreed that the Christian Businessman does not mention N21 even once. World Vision does not appear to be independent since the owners of N21 are its largest benefactors. For the purposes of establishing the notability of this company we need source which have significant coverage of it by name, not just ones which mention it in passing or in a directory or announcements of meetings, or ones which only discuss people or entities connected to it. I suggest we move further discussion of the sources to the AfD or article talk page to avoid clogging this page any more. Will Beback talk 00:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Will, you are incorrect. Page 59 is explicitly about the Dornans, who are earlier identified as the founders of Network 21, and how they got involved with Amway - clearly pertinent to the topic. pp101-103 refer to Paul & Linda Agus, Network 21 leaders in Indonesia, and on p102, contrary to your claims, explicitly mentions they moved to Indonesia to "build their business and spearhead the Network 21 organization's efforts in that country". Page 109 refers to Mitch & Diedre Sala's network and while it doesn't refer to Network 21 directly, the Sala's are identified as being involved with the creation of Network 21 on p.103. p.197 is about Robert Angkasa and the Indonesian launch and again, contrary to your claim, explicitly mentions Network 21 - "while managing inaugural activities in Indonesia for the Network 21 organization". He is also mentioned on p.103 as being involved in it's beginnings. Given that Network 21 is the people involved in it, I'm not quite sure why you think the people involved with it aren't pertinent to the article! As for the publisher, I wasn't aware of the founders history (assuming the SPS you have is correct), however it was founded in 1984 and by the time Empire of Freedom was published in 1997 it had over 130 employees, was publishing over 200 books a year, and was in partnership with Random House, a major publisher who later took them over completely [9][10]. There is no connection I'm aware of with Network 21, and perhaps more importantly the author, James W Robinson, is independent of both Network 21 and Amway and is an established author [11] --Insider201283 (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for that review. Regarding Empire of Freedom, ISBN 0761506756: I obtained a copy from the library. It's a small, thin book with large type. Its publisher, Prima Publishing, was founded by a successful Amway salesman, Ben Dominitz.[8] Of the citations that Insider lists on his page, several of them (pages 59, 101-103, 109, and 197) do not mention N21 by name and refer instead to various personnel who are presumably associated with it. While those indirect mentions would be acceptable to use as a source, they don't establish the notability of the entity. Of the direct mentions, about half simply mention N21 as being one of several similar networks. That mostly leaves just two passages, pages 6-8 (really just one page) and 147-148. As I said before, the pages don't have much text on them. In any case, there's no indication in the book of notability beyond the Amway world. Will Beback talk 22:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, the article on Bill Britt, who runs a comparable network, has been deleted three times. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Britt, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Britt 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Britt (2nd nomination). So it has been firmly established that that topic is not notable, pending new developments of course. Will Beback talk 19:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While the article as currently written is poorly sourced, the topic itself DOES meet WP:CORP, as evidenced by the numerous independent RS sources I have collated for use so far (see User:Insider201283/Network_21_-_references). The article had been little touched for a year until an edit war started a couple of weeks ago and it has been under protection the past week so I've been unable to make improvements. To be honest I'm a little hesistant to put the time in if it's going to be deleted! While the topic may be suited to a subsection of the Amway article my concern is that it will make that article unwieldy as there are numerous other independent support companies and affiliated distributor organisations that may be notable (eg Dexter Yager's Internet Services, Bill Britt, Schwarz Organisation and others). With international coverage in books, magazines, and academia it would seem clear that Network TwentyOne is notable. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per CORP. Sources are poor at best. Most references rely on OR to make the link between the source and the article topic. Shot info (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to note that Shot info has a history on this article and was "called" to this dispute by FG222[15]--Insider201283 (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's disappointing (though not surprising) to find out the official Amway ties with the "Empire of Freedom" publisher. Of all the sources given, I thought that one might be reliable, especially if instead it also mentioned N21 in more than passing.
As creatively as they are relentlessly tried to be interpreted as otherwise, most of the new and old sources listed have already been discounted and I wont repeat why they are insufficient as a whole, as everyone else has made it clear.
Insider, referring back to your example of microsoft staff donating being a company donation....IBOs are by definition independent of N21 and Amway as a business are they not? Certainly not "staff". Anyway, semantics aside, no reliable independent sources seem to exist to back up either point of view.
The Christian Businessman article explicitly states NOC is a Dornan enterprise, not N21. That has been well established.
Insider you have intimate company knowledge, and "speak to employees", and give the article tonality of advertisement and non-neutrality. Multiple times you have referenced and quoted online sources that did not have the fact/figure cited in the referenced article at the time of writing, but shortly afterwards the source text would be updated to include the "fact" already "referenced" that was already in the article. It seems likely either you knew the official homepage was about to be updated to quote your text, or you updated the source page yourself. It's as if the official N21 and NOC homepages have been updated after the facr to suit the WP article (and your arguments/POV) not the other way around as it should be.
For example the Network of Caring official homepage stated at the time it was first included as a reference that it was "the Dornan's creation of Network of Caring", but was included in the N21 article as a reference that it was part of N21. When the point was put forward that the direct link between N21 and NOC was not clear (due to above quote) the source reference webpage itself was then updated to now state "Network of Caring is also the philanthropic arm of Network TwentyOne Inc.", your exact words from the article. Funny.
I know you deny it (as other people have called you out on it in the past), but I think you should own up to your true role in the organisation, your edits and interpretation of sources and other people are tilted way beyond making the article seem fair and unbiased. I doubt you will come clean, however your conflict of interest is still obvious.
- Delete: Per CORP. With all points made by others above, it seem valid to delete this article (again), and at this stage I would agree.
Financeguy222 (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- FG222 - I told you on the talk page that I had written to Network 21 and pointed out the NOC page wasn't clear. I then told you again when they had changed it. Now you want to make some conspiracy out of it? You're just as free to email them as I do, their email addresses are on their website. That's where I got them from! I'm not aware of ANY time I've made edits not supported by the supporting source, so I don't know what you're talking about there - unless it's (again) your continued insistence that NOC is not Network 21 when we have the NOC site saying it is, the N21 site saying it is, and World Vision saying it is. The Christian Business Man article does not explicitly state it is a "Dornan enterprise" but even if it did that is entirely consistent with every other source saying its an outreach of Network 21! As for not writing in a "neutral" tone, considering your history of wanting to insert numerous non-RS opinion pieces into the article, that's a bit rich. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen written by you anywhere/on talk that you wrote to them to make the change, or to acknowledge that they changed it. If you did write it, then it has been lost in the mess that is this article and associated talks/procedures. No conspiracy, but it says a lot that you know more about their company than they do, telling them what to say about themselves on their own websites, and you're getting edits made on their page too. There were other examples of the exact same thing happening for other facts/figures listed on the article page (that I did not explicitly draw attention to) that were referenced incorrectly, and then later changed in the source to match the wikipedia quote of the same source. Very interesting.
Yes I inserted references, in an attempt to counterbalance the overwhelmingly promotional tone of the article, and at the same time supply some of the only references that were independent. I can accept them not being accepted in the article. The difference being I don't stand to benefit either way how this business and associated entities are portrayed, whereas someone with a vested interest in these companies (which you have admitted is true, as "non-active" member of Amway if I recall correctly) very much so does.
Like I said, as obvious as it could appear that a member of N21/staff member was relentlessly editing the article overly in their favour, true or not, that's just how it comes across, and multiple people have said it already. Many thinking so doesnt make it true, and even if completely false still speaks volumes about ones perceived probable conflict of interest if that's the impression created on many. I see there is no point discussing this further with you, and you would never admit the extent of it anyway. It just disturbs me that WP has people like that around. Financeguy222 (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) Just above "whats happens next" in the talk last week I mentioned they'd changed the site. [16] I can't find where I'd earlier said I'd emailed them though.
- (2) Until you started inserting POV that had already been rejected and challenging other stuff which has been there for years, I'd done very little with this article except a little cleaning here and there and adding the "Philanthropy" section 4 years ago - how you can construe that as "relentless editing" is beyond me. Your edits have been stronger POV editing than mine - does that mean I should consider the possibility you're paid by a competitor? Amway critics have been accusing me of being an Amway of N21 employee for years. I've denied it enough times, even Amway came out and denied it. There seems to be this bizarre idea that anyone can criticise the company relentlessly, but anyone who supports it must be a paid agent! It's interesting this idea exists considering there have been multiple instances of Amway critics being discovered to have been paid by an Amway competitor (P&G) and there are multitudes of independent bodies that have praised Amway.[17]. So folk like you consider someone like Blakey, who was paid to give a bad report on Amway by P&G, is a perfectly acceptable source, but something like World Vision is biased because N21 members donate to them! Incredible. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Bringing on the drama already I see. This is painfully promotional in tone, with right curious italics:
"Network TwentyOne, also known as Network 21, is an education, training, and support system for Independent Business Owners (IBOs) working with the Amway business. It refers both to the company supplying Professional Development Programs to IBOs and to the network of affiliated IBOs themselves."
The general POV pervading the article is that you can get rich quick with Amway: In 1971 Jim Dornan was working as an aeronautical engineer and Nancy Dornan as a speech pathologist when they were introduced to the Amway business. After two years, at the age of 25, they were able to retire from their jobs, however soon afterwards their son Eric was born with severe birth defects. While they were able to focus on his care, after a year they realised they would need significantly more income to support him throughout his life, and over the next three years they rapidly built one of the largest Amway businesses in North America. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? How are the italics curious? Putting industry jargon in italics the first time it's used is quite common usage. Indeed the Wikipedia Style Guide says to do exactly that [18]! The fact you, as an admin, think that following WP style guidelines is "curious" is curious in itself. As for the "you can get rich in Amway" tone? Are you serious? It's obviously relevant to the article and has two independent RS sources. It's just a fact behind the origin of the company. I only wrote than last night as part of the request for rewriting. How would you suggest we write it? --Insider201283 (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you object to including the historical motivations for founding a business as "promotional", I've rewritten that section. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The italics struck me as odd mostly because "Independent Business Operator" and "Professional Development Program" aren't really technical terms; they seem to be fairly self explanatory, even as Amway is using them. Please note also that you cannot create the illusion that there is any major dispute about deleting this article, which has already been deleted once before, simply by putting more text on the discussion page than anyone else. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, we lose the italics then. As for previous deletions, from archive.org it appears there were no sources at all for the article[19], let alond RS ones, and it was clearly not up to standard. It did not even remotely resemble the current article, so your comparison is clearly not a valid one. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The italics struck me as odd mostly because "Independent Business Operator" and "Professional Development Program" aren't really technical terms; they seem to be fairly self explanatory, even as Amway is using them. Please note also that you cannot create the illusion that there is any major dispute about deleting this article, which has already been deleted once before, simply by putting more text on the discussion page than anyone else. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since you object to including the historical motivations for founding a business as "promotional", I've rewritten that section. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"there are multitudes of independent bodies that have praised Amway" referenced a link to your own personal website with an apparent list of "awards". Thanks, I havnt had such a good laugh in a long time.
Getting back to the article, the sources are getting worse now. Financeguy222 (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted to improve the article somewhat The majority of the issues talked about have not been addressed, no need to repeat myself. New issues: Removed paid webwire press release, and IBOAI link. I believe that is not RS.
Before I alter any further I will discuss here. Regarding the n21guy.com references, the tone of the website is it's a personal POV blog (non RS), but Insider has said it is an official site. What evidence did you use to establish that? The site attempts to pass itself off as a personal blog, with multiple references to "my site" "i'm" etc.
The solvenian reference source states it is about "Network 21 aka Amway" thus supports the notability issue, that it is only notable to Amway, or is Amway? Financeguy222 (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've replaced the n21guy.com website because it is explicitly self-published. It was a convenience link to an article in "Achieve Magazine", which is published by the Independent Business Owners Association International (IBOAI). Jim Dornan, head of Network TwentyOne, is on the IBOAI Executive Committee.[20] So that's another source which appears to be non-independent. Will Beback talk 06:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (1)Will - The n21guy.com is a Network 21 official blog. It's linked to from the n21corp.com website. It's only been used as a convenience link for the Achieve magazine, which is published by Amway, not Network 21. Jim Dornan is not on the executive board or any other board of Amway, and as per the Amway blog links in the "controversy" section it's clearly not simply some "fawning" relationship. An even further "removed" source would be better but it's being used for what should be an entirely non-controversial information that simply updated information in an older RS source (EOF). This is a perfectly acceptable source under WP:RS.
- (2)FG222 - The AmwayWiki is an open wiki. It's "my site" as much as Wikipedia is Jimmy Wales site. The list of awards and recognitions links to many many independent RS sources. The fact you think because a website collates something that it makes the facts "laughable" says something about your POV on this topic. What "sources are getting worse" are you talking about? The sources I added in the update are I think all RS. Note also under WP:RS that info about an organisation from that organisation is perfectly acceptable in an article about that organisation, just the article should not primarily consist of such sources. This one does not. I think the only reason the IBOAI source was there was as just further evidence against the ridiculous claims that Network 21 and NOC were not related. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How did you establish the n21guy.com is a "Network 21 official blog"? Financeguy222 (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How about the fact it's linked to from the N21 home page [21], it lists "other n21 sites", which are all official N21 sites, the domain is registered by Network TwentyOne International[22], and the author reports he is an employee of Network 21 [23]. Not to mention it's obvious if you actually read the site. :-/ Neither here nor there anywhere since it's not being used as a source for anything and never has been. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP or notability and seems to be promotional much in the same way the PearC article is; if it wasn't tangentially connected to a "big name" it wouldn't even be on the radar screen.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet another well known anti-MLM wikipedian joins the fray. What a surprise. I note the PearC article has one reference, to the article topics website, and two external links. The Network TwentyOne article currently uses eleven completely independent RS sources as well as a number of significant other 3rd part sources such as World Vision. Having said that, a quick searcu shows that PearC is clearly notable as well [24], though the article obviously needs work.
"eleven completely independent RS sources?" I don't know how you came to that figure. 11? Also, It wouldnt suprise me if Jim Dornan or an Amway exec was on the board of the Grand Rapids Press, after all it is a very small town. Financeguy222 (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) The Grand Rapids Press article is reporting on a government lawsuit against Amway & Network 21
- (2) Grand Rapids, Michigan has a population approaching 800,000 people - you call that "a very small town"?
- (3) Jim Dornan and Network TwentyOne are headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, nowhere near Grand Rapids. Really FG222, your biased POV on this article is quite bizarre.
- (4) I will answer re the 11 sources in a separate section below. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Insider201283's over pro-MLM stance to the point of WP:COI can be seen in [Talk:Pyramid_scheme#The_Connection_to_MLMs_is_relevant] where sources from Wiley, Sage, Greenwood Press, and Oxford University Press are challenged with a mixture of earlier sources from these publishers, WP:OR, and WP:SYN as well as the claim over at Talk:Multi-level_marketing that "books published by, for example, Cashflow are NOT considered SPS as they have editorial staff and processes" when the company can be easily be shown not only be owned by the author but that that very same author is also the Secretary, Treasurer, and Director of Cashflow. The very idea that a 1996 Wiley book can challenge 2003 and 2009 Wiley books, a 1991 Sage book can challenge a 2005 Sage book, or a 2005 Praeger Publishers book (with no recommendations presented by the publisher) can challenge a 2007 Greenwood book the publisher uses recommendations from American Reference Books Annual, School Library Journal, Reference Books Bulletin, Kirkus Reviews, Reference & Research Book News, and Library Journal only further boggles the mind. I should mention the Bizon Computers article had even more references and links (as seen in its Russian counterpart--[[25]] and it was removed because it wasn't notable (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bizon_Computers).--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bruce, this is not the place to discuss your view that a few non-descript authors are greater authorities on the law regarding pyramid schemes than the FTC, Royal Canadian Mounties, UK Government, EU Parliament, Australia government etc. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given this is a typical misrepresentation of the fact this is the place for this point. Saying "illegal pyramid scheme" as the FTC, Royal Canadian Mounted Police ("For the purpose of Section 206(1)(e) of the Criminal Code a pyramid scheme is illegal when a person participating in the scheme becomes entitled to receive more money than they invested in the scheme by reason of recruiting others." (ie a pyramid scheme is legal when person participating in the scheme does not become entitled to receive more money than they invested in the scheme by reason of recruiting others) espessly acknowledges there are legal pyramid schemes. In fact, UK government admits in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50) that the Government was "considering legal action against the schemes and options to close legal loopholes related to pyramid schemes."--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bruce, this is not the place to discuss your view that a few non-descript authors are greater authorities on the law regarding pyramid schemes than the FTC, Royal Canadian Mounties, UK Government, EU Parliament, Australia government etc. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Insider201283's over pro-MLM stance to the point of WP:COI can be seen in [Talk:Pyramid_scheme#The_Connection_to_MLMs_is_relevant] where sources from Wiley, Sage, Greenwood Press, and Oxford University Press are challenged with a mixture of earlier sources from these publishers, WP:OR, and WP:SYN as well as the claim over at Talk:Multi-level_marketing that "books published by, for example, Cashflow are NOT considered SPS as they have editorial staff and processes" when the company can be easily be shown not only be owned by the author but that that very same author is also the Secretary, Treasurer, and Director of Cashflow. The very idea that a 1996 Wiley book can challenge 2003 and 2009 Wiley books, a 1991 Sage book can challenge a 2005 Sage book, or a 2005 Praeger Publishers book (with no recommendations presented by the publisher) can challenge a 2007 Greenwood book the publisher uses recommendations from American Reference Books Annual, School Library Journal, Reference Books Bulletin, Kirkus Reviews, Reference & Research Book News, and Library Journal only further boggles the mind. I should mention the Bizon Computers article had even more references and links (as seen in its Russian counterpart--[[25]] and it was removed because it wasn't notable (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bizon_Computers).--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI've added this and then struck it out to make it clear that I'm withdrawing my "delete" !vote, due to the enormous improvements to the article from what it was when nominated. Will Beback talk 09:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Current Status of the Network TwentyOne article
[edit]The Network 21 article had been locked until shortly before this AfD was placed. As per Talk:Network_TwentyOne I was working on collating sources and a rewrite. Substantial changes to the article have been made since the AfD was posted and I think it's iumportant to outline them. It's also important to note that so far this AfD has had only "vote" from a non-involved editor.
The following wholly independent 3rd Party sources are used in the article -
- Robinson, James W. (1997). Empire of Freedom: The Amway Story and What It Means to You.
- Saxena, Rajan (2005). Marketing Management
- Gorenjski Glas, Issue 52, 1997, p.21
- The Christian Businessman, May 1998, pp28-34
- Manila Standard,19 Sep 1997, p.18
- The Muskegon Chronicle (Grand Rapids).
- Daily Sun (South Africa),Monday 30 July 2007, p.12
- Money.pl. December 10, 2001
- Reporters without Borders - Poland Annual Report 2004
- The Grand Rapids Press (Grand Rapids)
- (Note to FinanceGuy222 - the above were the sources used when I made the comment above about 11 sources. My apologies, it was 10 not 11, I originally included Blaze Sports in that count, but they're not "wholly independent" as they partner with the Fernando Foundation.)
- Priosaksono, Aribowo; Sembel, Roy (2003). Maximise your strength. Elex Media Komputindo. pp. 192-193
- Sarosa, Pietra (2005). Becoming young entrepreneur: dream big, start small, act now!. Elex Media Komputindo. p. 23
- Warta ekonomi: mingguan berita ekonomi & bisnis: 30. 1997.
- Groß, Claudia (2008). Multi-level-marketing: Identität und Ideologie im Network-marketing. Gabler Wissenschaftsverlage. pp. 194,228,268
- Harefa, Andrias (2000). berwirausaha dari nol. Gramedia Pustaka Utama. pp. 33-35
That's fifteen wholly independent 3rd party WP:RS, WP:V sources currently used in the article.
Then you have other 3rd party sources that are not completely independent of Network TwentyOne but have some connection of some sort, but are still cleary 3rd party and reliable for the non-controversial information they are being used as sources for -
- * Amway - clearly a reliable source to talk about Dornan's achievements as an Amway IBO
- * World Vision - clearly a reliable source to talk about their donors
- * Free Wheelchair Mission - as above
- * Reach for a Dream - clearly a reliable source to talk about their sponsors
- * Blaze Sports - has partnered with the Fernando Foundation for Power Soccer
In addition, this discussion is about Notability. Apart from the significant coverage in Empire of Freedom, Network TwentyOne has also been the subject of a case study published in a peer-reviewed journal. Note that WP:CORP states - Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article..
- * ENERAPAN SISTEM PENGHARGAAN DAN SANKSI YANG MENIMBULKAN PENGENDALIAN INTER-ORGANISASI: STUD1 KASUS PADA AMWAY CORPORATION-NETWORK 21, JATI (Jurnal Akuntansi dan Teknologi Informasi) Berkala Hasil Penelitian, Gagasan Konseptual, Kajian, dan Terapan, Vol 2, No 1 (2004)[26]
If the significant coverage of a peer-reviewed published case study and some 10+ pages of coverage in a book is not enough to convince of notability, WP:CORP also states If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. We have more than thirty separate independent sources see User:Insider201283/Network_21_-_references
WP:CORP also states Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. We currently have verifiable media sources mentioning Network TwentyOne from at least seven countries -
- United States
- Poland
- Australia
- Indonesia
- Phillipines
- Denmark
- South Africa
Finally, WP:NOTE also says it is important to consider not only whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. The sources listed above are only those readily findable through the internet. I'm aware that the dispute over the film Welcome to Life received significant coverage in Poland in the late 1990s. In addition later this year a new book about Amway is being published which I believe will cover Network 21 [27]. So -
- We have significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources
- We have multiple independent sources
- We have evidence of international media attention
WP:CORP has clearly been satisfied. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again Insider201283 leaves out key points of information. First, WP:CORP spells out what does not qualify:
"An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." This throws out the "United Kingdom investigates Amway" July 01, 2007 The Muskegon Chronicle reference; the only reason Network TwentyOne got mention was it was being sued with Amway.
"Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.". Saxena is a prime example of this as "Network 21" is only mentioned once and in passing.
"Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story." This sums up The Christian Businessman source which is basically an article on Dornan and the only Network it talks about is a "Network of Caring".
"The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." This drop kicks the Manila Standard, Daily Sun (South Africa), Grand Rapids Press, Gorenjski Glas, and all the other local "references" into the iffy pile.
- Second, there is Insider201283's annoying habit of not giving you all the information you need on a source. Articles normally have titles but his The Christian Businessman reference doesn't making it harder to find.
- Finally, some of these publishers are iffy. I pointed out in [Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2] that Prima Publishing had possible reliable problems and now thanks to Will Beback we find out it founded by a guy from Amway that confirms that it is on the very iffy list.
- If Insider201283 has to go to such obscure articles as "Amway" wygrał z Dederką" rather than the English version of Money it just goes to prove what the consensus here says already--this company simply does not meet the WP:COMP guidelines.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (1) Bruce, "notability" is not limited to the United States or english speaking world, especially when talking about an organisation which is primarily notable outside of the english speaking world. Money.pl and Gorenjski Glas are national media in Poland with significant circulation. South Africa's Daily Sun is a national newspaper with the largest circulation of that country. There are also an unused sourced from the national magazine such as Business Review Weekly in Australia and the two national Indonesian news magazines.
- (2) Network 21 was sued separately to Amway and if one looks at the case and judgement you'll discover it was the other way around - Amway was sued because of it's association with distributor groups misrepresenting Amway. While the case against N21 was dropped, BrittWorldWide voluntarily wound themselves up and Amway kicked out another group that BERR was unable to sue as they were not incorporated and outside their jurisdiction.
- (3) The Saxena mention may be incidental but is used for no more than confirmation of Network 21 operating in India and the author considered it worth noting. They did not note other distributor training organisations that operate with Amway in India.
- (4) As already noted, at the time Empire of Freedom was published, Prima was a major publishing house with over 100 staff and partnered with Random House, whom have since absorbed them. It's interesting to note your POV that an entire publishing house with thousands of publications should be considered unreliable because the publishing companies founder, not the books author, and a decade before the book in question was published, was (according to a blog!) an Amway representative - something tens of millions of people have been - yet elsewhere on Wikipedia you fight vehemently to have works critical of MLM written by ex-members of MLMs to be considered a reliable sources, even when self-published! You may want to consider some introspection on that.
- (5) Thanks for pointing out the incomplete cite to The Christian Businessman, I have corrected it. The article is a significant front cover article on the founder of Network 21 and talks quite extensively about the start of his Amway business and launching internationally in partnership with his business associates. This is clearly about Network 21 and WP:NOTOR.
- --Insider201283 (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Insider201283 there are several points here:
- (1) Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources is quite clear on the use of Non-English sources for this wikipedia: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material." Show me the policy or guideline that expressly and directly states that non-English sources help establish notability rather than Verifiability; as far as I can tell there isn't one. Even when using foreign sources in the Vampires article that supported a certain point I made sure the point was also supported by English sources that came from a University Press book as well as the Encyclopaedia Britannica.
- 2)is this verifiable by independent national English sources or is this of the same cut of cloth that your claim that Cruz was not peer reviewed came from?
- 3) Only shows Network 21 existed not that it is notable which is what this AfD is about.
- 4) as I said before Prima Publishing better known through their Prima games division is part of the Random House Information Group. We are using a game manual publisher as a RS on MLM who is owned by a printing company that is all over freaking map in terms of meeting WP:RS guidelines? You have GOT to be kidding! Never mind you stated "As I've already pointed out to you, books published by, for example, Cashflow are NOT considered SPS as they have editorial staff and processes, but that doesn't really matter as (again, as I've already told you but you conveniently keep ignoring), the book has also been by TechPress". But TechPress [28] by their own admission "played a key role in the global success of the Rich Dad brand in coordinating international rights for the Rich Dad series of books (over 26 million copies sold worldwide)." Great, they helped make s guy who admits to using his cat as a business partner as a contract dodge and whose advice John T. Reed (whose views on real estate gurus like Kiyosaki and real estate investment in general have appeared in such reliable publishers as MSN Money, CNN Money, and even the New York Times) says is at best unethical if not outright illegal famous. Clearly they might as well be self published and are therefore useless as Prima.
- 4) Class in America H-P by Robert E. Weir (2007) by Greenwood ("Publisher of reference titles, academic and general interest books, and textbooks." recommended by the likes American Reference Books Annual, School Library Journal, Reference Books Bulletin, Kirkus Reviews, Reference & Research Book News, and Library Journal has two of its three recommended reading titles Carrol's online Skeptic Dictionary and Fitzpatrick's False Profits book. So here we have a book recommended for college and university libraries by anybody who is anybody, published by a publisher of reference titles, referring to one of these "works critical of MLM written by ex-members of MLMs" as recommended reading and you are claiming that this is not enough to denote Fitzpatrick at being an expert in this field? ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING?!? As for Scheibeler that was from Inter press service dated Jan 28, 2009 which you tried to counter with a Religion Dispatches piece dated February 11, 2009 or nearly two weeks later than the article cited Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2#Multitude_of_self-published_source. The Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_58#Quoting_an_RS_source_citing_non-RS_sources and the related Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_58#Times_identified_as_.22unreliable.22 has to biggest insanity I have seen Wikipedia in a long time thought, can at least give Insider201283 credit in not using a blog in the challenge of the Times as . dave souza did. At least when I was using Taylor and FitzPatrick I had a whole list of reliable sources (like the Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, Journal of Business Ethics, American Board of Sport Psychology to back up the ideas of them being expert in the relevant field.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bruce, again this is not the place for your anti-MLM crusade. Just to be clear on your relevant point - are you suggesting Wikipedia should only consider english language sources in regard to notability?--Insider201283 (talk) 10:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-english sources are perfectly capable of establishing notability. While it is the english wikipedia, that is only relevant to the language that it is written in. not the topics covered or where the sources come from. This is a completely irrelevant argument and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of wikipedia policies, guidelines and existing consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Insider201283, It is not a crusade to point out COI issues that two other editors have also pointed out regarding Amway and Amway related articles and there is evidence of similar issues in the talk pages of the MLM and Pyramid Scheme articles. Crossmr, I would like to point out that Wikipedia:Verifiability supersedes Wikipedia:Notability and the former expressly states "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material". Occam's Razor suggests the very simple reason that "no English source of equal quality can be found" is that Wikipedia:Notability's provision of "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability" applies and that this article is clearly headed for deletion (four deletes and even the comment below can't recommend keeping this article ) "shows a fundamental lack of understanding of wikipedia policies, guidelines and existing consensus."--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment based on the media and description of academic sources, I wouldn't recommend keeping this article. However the description of the book/magazie sources is much more interesting and seems to indicate actual notability. Unfortunately I don't have access to them to. Specifically one seems to have several pages on it and there is a documentary that seems to have been made about it. Particular attention to these sources should be paid to by the closing admin and properly evaluated.--Crossmr (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment. Why wouldn't you consider an academic case study in a peer-reviewed journal to be indicative of notability? Also as you note and I neglected to consider, the award winning and controversial Polish documentary Welcome to Life, about which there was much Polish news media discussion is about Network 21 and Amway launching in Poland - clearly notable. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's four more polish news sources about Welcome to Life. Note that these are all recent articles talking about something that happened a decade ago. As you can imagine, there was substantially more coverage at the time, however polish news sources from that time are not available online. [29][30][31][32] --Insider201283 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Found an easily accessible copy of the first 10 minutes of Witajcie W życiu (Welcome to Life) [33] As you can see N21 is featured prominently, before even the titles are shown. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a notable documentary? Who published it? Was it created wholly independent of Amway (amway does tend to fund and create a lot of these things)? Did it win any awards?--Crossmr (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (1)As already noted Amway and Network 21 successfully sued the producers, so it's not likely to be by them is it? :-) It was by well known Polish film-maker Henry Dederko[34]. The film has it's own entry on Polish Wikipedia[35] and has been the subject of much media attention, both at the time and in the years since.
- (2)Again, as already noted, yes it won awards, including Grand Prix “White Cobra” and Award of President of Polish Public TV Company during 8th Media Festival[36]
- (3)To the best of my knowledge Amway (and I've spent a decade trying to dig up everything ever done about Amway) has never funded or created a documentary about itself, so I'm not sure where you get your (mis)information about that?--Insider201283 (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) As Russianmac shows just because it is notable in one wikipedia doesn't mean it is notable here.
- 2)I hate it when a source only provides partial information and you have to hunt for the rest. For the record the Media Festival “A Man in Danger” is organized by the Museum of Cinematography in Łódź and so has academic (ie museum) professionals backing it and therefore is a reliable source and establishes notability for the film per the example of Super Size Me. However as Prelude to War and The Battle of Russia winning the Academy award as Documentary Features of 1942 and 1943 show an award doesn't not always guarantee reliable or accuracy of content. Even by the standards of 1943 the idea of calling the Russians "a free people" under Stalin was boardline ridiculous.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bruce, you've made your position clear, there's no need to debate it further unless you have new information. Welcome to life is a clear slam dunk for notability of this article. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this a notable documentary? Who published it? Was it created wholly independent of Amway (amway does tend to fund and create a lot of these things)? Did it win any awards?--Crossmr (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Found an easily accessible copy of the first 10 minutes of Witajcie W życiu (Welcome to Life) [33] As you can see N21 is featured prominently, before even the titles are shown. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's four more polish news sources about Welcome to Life. Note that these are all recent articles talking about something that happened a decade ago. As you can imagine, there was substantially more coverage at the time, however polish news sources from that time are not available online. [29][30][31][32] --Insider201283 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the comment. Why wouldn't you consider an academic case study in a peer-reviewed journal to be indicative of notability? Also as you note and I neglected to consider, the award winning and controversial Polish documentary Welcome to Life, about which there was much Polish news media discussion is about Network 21 and Amway launching in Poland - clearly notable. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Spam, advertising, COI, press releases, promotional in nature, basically just existing as Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These concerns seem separate to notability. Could you elaborate with some specifics so the article can be improved, or even better contribute by improving it yourself?--Insider201283 (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made some further changes that hopefully address your concerns. There is now not a single statement sourced from a press release or other non independent source. Also reworded a few things that might have been considered promotional in tone. --Insider201283 (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still seeing a bunch of less than independent sources. -- Cirt (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are currently 31 sources listed, one used 5 separate times, leaving 27 different sources. Three of these 27 sources are N21 sources, and they simply provide updated info on sources supported elsewhere. 24 are third party sources, though five are independent charities reporting on N21 support for them. Organisational sources are allowed sources for information about the organisation itself, yet I've even removed all statements not supported elsewher in order to try and satisfy concerns expressed here. Unless I've missed one AFAIK there is not a single statement in the article not supported by a 3rd party source. That well exceeds Wikipedia standards for an article of this nature. This article has been completely rewritten in the past two weeks. If you believe an article about an organisation should be deleted because the organisation itself is used as a source to update a few facts and figures then virtually every article on corps and organisations is due for deletion. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've deleted every reference relating to Network 21. It required some minor changes to the text that makes the artcile less accurate. Every single source is now 3rd party. I must admit I'm currently struggling with WP:AGF. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are currently 31 sources listed, one used 5 separate times, leaving 27 different sources. Three of these 27 sources are N21 sources, and they simply provide updated info on sources supported elsewhere. 24 are third party sources, though five are independent charities reporting on N21 support for them. Organisational sources are allowed sources for information about the organisation itself, yet I've even removed all statements not supported elsewher in order to try and satisfy concerns expressed here. Unless I've missed one AFAIK there is not a single statement in the article not supported by a 3rd party source. That well exceeds Wikipedia standards for an article of this nature. This article has been completely rewritten in the past two weeks. If you believe an article about an organisation should be deleted because the organisation itself is used as a source to update a few facts and figures then virtually every article on corps and organisations is due for deletion. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still seeing a bunch of less than independent sources. -- Cirt (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made some further changes that hopefully address your concerns. There is now not a single statement sourced from a press release or other non independent source. Also reworded a few things that might have been considered promotional in tone. --Insider201283 (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge — I am an uninvolved editor when it comes to this article. I was involved in a previous mediation between Will Beback and Insider201283 over an Amway-related topic, so I have some familiarity with the subject matter. Insider requested that I look here impartially to see what I thought about the situation. Here are my thoughts:
- When I first looked at the article, I was amazed that it was even being considered for deletion. There are very few short articles in the entire encyclopedia that are as fully sourced. You can hardly read a full sentence without getting hit with a footnote reference (which I actually find highly annoying while reading articles, but that's the way that Wikipedia encourages editors to do things). So, obviously the number of references is not at issue here.
- WP:CORP is the main reason that was listed for deletion of the article.
- The primary criteria of WP:CORP states "[An]… organization… is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." We have established that the article has such coverage. (Don't complain about the quality of them… that's next.)
- "Such sources must be reliable…" Several people above have demonstrated that several of the sources listed are reliable enough to satisfy this part of the requirement.
- "and independent of the subject." Here's where the primary disagreement appears to be found. What is an independent source? Is it a source that has absolutely no involvement with Amway, any of its IBOs, any of its IBO support/marketing networks? No. That's way too high of a standard, and it is not what the guidelines state anyway. Consider substituting "Amway" with "Microsoft" or "General Mills", and you can see how nearly impossible it would be to find someone that uninvolved. So, let's consider WP:COI as a source for determining who might be independent (i.e., who would not have a conflict of interest if they were writing the article directly). Note that I have not read the articles, but am summarizing based on above comments from people who have.
- Not oneself — None of the articles seem to have been written by anyone in Network 21 (Amway is a closely-related third party to N21, so even if Amway wrote an article, it wouldn't be "self" written)
- "receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia i.e., to write an article about N21 as a representative of an organization" —While N21 may be World Vision's top financial donor, is World Vision writing biased things about N21 as a result or paying someone else to do so? Given that the organization was founded in 1950 and it's mission statement is "to follow our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God", it doesn't sound like they are the kind of organization that goes around talking up its donors because of a hefty check. I've seen some of their marketing materials, and it has never focused on the donors, but on the work that they do and the work that needs doing. Therefore, I see this as likely a valid (i.e., uninterested) reference and therefore usable.
- "you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being an owner, officer, or other stakeholder of a company or other organization about which you are writing" — While World Vision itself might appreciate more donations if they grease the palms of their donors, the person who wrote the article is unlikely to receive benefits from it. Unless there was some sort of back room deal made (seems highly unlikely unless someone can find evidence to back that claim), it seems that at most that N21 came to the attention of World Vision because of its donations, thus World Vision may have written about it, and might not have otherwise. I sincerely doubt that the donations blinded World Vision into writing inaccurate materials unfairly favoring N21 just on the off chance that they might receive more money at some point in the future.
- The other articles mentioned do not seem to be affected even by this pale shadow of monetary interest.
- "involved in a court case, or close to one of the litigants" — The Polish article might fall into this area if the author was directly involved in the issues. If it is simply a report on the proceedings or outcomes, then it is fine. In fact, it's better than fine, because it helps keep the article WP:NPOV.
- As to the "autobiography", "self-promotion", and "promotional" criteria, it's difficult to judge. On the surface, none of the sources seem to be "official" N21 sites or written by N21 members (is it a membership organization?), or a marketing association. The publisher of the book who was in the company may have been influenced positively enough by his experiences to publish the book, but he wasn't the author, so I don't see any issue there. The fact that the "book is a popular giveaway by Amway recruiters" is not damning; "recruiters" (negative point of view slipping in?) are likely to use any third-party reference that paints them positively, because it helps boost their image and credibility. We use the same criteria here. If someone can show direct relationships between N21 and any of the sources, that might change my view.
- "Activities regarded by insiders as simply 'getting the word out' may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest." — It doesn't sound like any of the sources are doing this, except possibly the event announcement. Otherwise, the rest sound ok.
- "[COI] is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization." — So, if N21 wrote something about Amway, or Amway wrote something about N21, there could be a conflict of interest. However, I'm sure that Amway has a very well-paid legal team that ensures that anything they say about N21 is honest (though it might be slanted depending on how Amway feels about N21), or at least not libelous. Hopefully N21 operates the same way. But I don't recall any of the references being made by Amway about N21. If there are, they might be suspect. However, if an Amway source is a reference to an official policy (IBOs may participate in approved outside organizations, and N21 is approved) or list of approved organizations, then that would be fine. In fact, I would consider a reference like that to be very helpful in establishing notability IF Amway listed N21 by name.
- "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." and "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." — No problem there. We have probably at least 3 WP:RS (and probably many more). While one reliable source is not enough, there is no minimum limit. We are to use common sense (which is not as common as many believe) to decide if the available sources are strong enough to support the article and indicate if even more sources are likely. As I mentioned above, this article is better sourced than most of its size, so I think it clearly meets that requirement, too.
- "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." —As mentioned above, the sources are from several nations and some of the sources themselves are multinational (e.g., World Vision).
- WP:N was also mentioned by someone. So let's look a little more closely at one part that seems problematic:
- "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." —This mostly seems to be an issue with the previously mentioned book. I have no desire to run down to the library to check out the book (this AfD would probably be over by then anyway), so I am going to do a little reading between the lines as to what was said above. Those who have read the book are welcome to correct any misconceptions. It appears that Insider is citing passages of the book that he feels relate directly to N21, but Will Beback states that most of the passages refer to individuals, not the organization. Insider states that, in this case, the people and the organization are synonymous with each other. I think Insider also said that the organization name is mentioned along with the people on earlier pages, so as far as the book is concerned, they are synonyms. This concerns me a bit because:
- WP:CORP states, "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. If the organization itself did not receive notice, then the organization is not notable. For example, if a notable person buys a restaurant, the restaurant does not inherit notability from its owner." — Is that what is happening in this case? Is the book's author telling charming stories about the founders of N21, and making the assumption that N21 is likewise charming and important (inheriting the founder's notability)? Or is it more like the case used to be where "Bill Gates" and "Microsoft" were often used as synonyms for each other back when Gates ran the company? If the executive of an organization tightly manages it, the two can often be difficult to separate. So, for those who have read the book, how is the author treating this case?
- "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." —This mostly seems to be an issue with the previously mentioned book. I have no desire to run down to the library to check out the book (this AfD would probably be over by then anyway), so I am going to do a little reading between the lines as to what was said above. Those who have read the book are welcome to correct any misconceptions. It appears that Insider is citing passages of the book that he feels relate directly to N21, but Will Beback states that most of the passages refer to individuals, not the organization. Insider states that, in this case, the people and the organization are synonymous with each other. I think Insider also said that the organization name is mentioned along with the people on earlier pages, so as far as the book is concerned, they are synonyms. This concerns me a bit because:
- Looking back over my thoughts, I do not see any red flags that should result in deletion of this article. Does it need some more work? Yeah, most articles do. Is it off to a good start? Definitely. Is it well sourced? It certainly is better than most and seems to establish notability per WP:N, even conisering the more stringent [[WP:CORP] guidelines. Have any of the reasons above given me cause to think the article is worth deleting? No, not particularly.
- I said that I would support keeping the article or merging it. There do seem to be a number of these types of organizations. It might be a great idea for someone to write an article that generally defines (in neutral terms) what these organizations do, how they are established, managed, authorized, etc. Then, give specific examples, starting with the best documented and sourced organizations (this seems to be a good one). The fewer the references, the less article space they receive. There are problems with this strategy, however:
- Such an article is highly unlikely to survive long enough to get it off the ground. The overview, by nature, is unlikely to have enough secondary sources to survive a prod or AfD. Those will come as the article develops. The initial sources will likely be primary (Amway's definitions and rules about them, and some of the organizations themselves and their "about us" type of copy). As soon as the text of this article (or a similar one) gets added to it, cries of WP:CORP will have it right back at AfD claiming too many primary sources and not enough secondaries.
- I can also envision a lot of finger-pointing and "my organization is better than yours" type of POV statements being made within the article. While that's not a reason to not write the article, it just means that edit wars will be likely, and that tends to bring more attention to the article, and that can increase the first problem I mentioned.
- So, I propose that this article remain. I would like to see it improved, with more third-party sources found. But that's just something that goes for most articles. Then, if Insider wants to take this one, develop the overview article I described. Merge the text from this article into it. If an admin will restore the best written version of the Bill Brit article to his user space, he can add that in. And then if he can find a third similar organization (with RS) to add to the article, it should be able to withstand AfD scrutiny. Replace the text of this article with the new text and move it to a new neutral article name and create redirects to the new article from the names of the other mentioned organizations.
- The result would be a significantly improved article, we would have a place for any such future articles to be consolidated (i.e., any other similar organizations that aren't quite notable enough to stand on their own as a separate article, but do have enough to justify a section within the larger article), and Wikipedia would be improved by having broader coverage of this topic.
- Wishful thinking aside, with regard to this particular AfD, I do not find that anyone has made a compelling case for deletion. There are some issues, but not enough to override the fact that the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and should not be deleted because some people are applying an unusually high standard of qualification to sources that in most articles would be considered more than adequate. That's my unbiased and hopefully helpful view of the matter. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 01:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the WP:CORP arguments- "Not oneself" - the World Vision article clearly is written by Network of Caring.
"receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia" and "you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being an owner, officer, or other stakeholder of a company or other organization about which you are writing"
Whilst people have assumed editor Insider201283 works for Amway/N21 PR team, however likely, not yet proven, but he has only openly admitted that he is a member of such organisations, a "non-active" one if I quote him correctly, and that he runs a substantial amount of pro Amway websites, (enough to have previously been compared by someone as a full time job ;) ) The member admission certainly qualifies him as a stakeholder in the organisation about which he is writing.
For the articles Significant coverage issues, Originally many (some fixed, some still do) of the citations/references also pointed specifically to individuals or businesses related to people involved in N21, not n21 itself.
As you mentioned Willscrlt, Empire of Freedom has been noted as referring to inviduals.
The Welcome to life! movie only appears to mention N21 briefly in passing, although my Polish is not at all fluent enough to confirm exact details.
Judging a company (ie world vision) on their mission statement/motto, is not the best way to verify their integrity. ie Enron's "Respect, Integrity, Communication and Excellence."
World Vision's president is one of the highest paid charity leaders in the world. I'm not arguing their business ethics, just that they can not possibly be completely independent from donating parties.
The WV article clearly appears to be written by NOC/N21(for those who assume they are legally one and the same), it states "We in Network of Caring thank you...." for "your support", and refers to WV in the third person. The whole ref appears to be an official PR letter out to NOC IBOs, also supporting the notability issue that it is separate from N21, and states that "Network of Caring child sponsors, made up of thousands of IBOs" (independent business owners, independent directly of N21 company itself).
Further argument for individual article notability/merging:
The Reporters sans fronteirs ref calls Network 21 "Amway’s PR subsidiary", and is the only reference to N21 in the whole article.
The slovenian article reference calls network 21 "Amway's alias".
Financeguy222 (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Funny. I thought that this was a discussion about whether the subject of the article is notable — not an inquiry of the people participating in the discussion. Right now I don't care if Insider is the president of Amway or the president of their biggest competitor. Also, it does not matter if N21 is or is not the PR arm of Amway, because WP:CORP doesn't require it to be fully independent. From my limited understanding of N21 and all the other organizations like it, they are independent, but approved and possibly endorsed by Amway. In other words, they have a symbiotic relationship, because both benefit from each other. But that's not the point of the discussion.
- The important question is whether N21 is notable or not. To determine that, we need to focus on the central question of whether there are adequate secondary sources available that discuss N21 in a meaningful way. So, are there at least two such sources available? (Two being the bare minimum to qualify per WP:CORP.) If not, then merge or delete. If so, then given the number of other sources, albeit less clear-cut, I would say that notability is satisfied. It really should be that simple if people would focus on the point of this discussion and stop getting sidetracked by pro- and anti- arguments about the companies, organizations, and alleged members thereof who might or might not be participating here. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 11:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but my points directly address your points that vote in support of notability, and find they are flawed. If that's "funny", and sidetracking, I agree, but they are said to support the AfD issue.
My other points support notability issues directly, which have not been properly addressed yet. Financeguy222 (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I just went to the so-called World Vision source. I agree that it is not really a secondary source, but rather a primary source (part of a series of pages from the charitable arm of N21) apparently hosted on World Vision's Web server. It makes a fine primary source, but does little to nothing to establish notability outside of their own words.
- A quick Internet search found lots of results, but mostly either pro- or anti- Amway sites (not going to help much in this discussion), blogs and other wikis (disallowed under WP:RS, copies of the en.wiki article (no help at all), and so on.
- However, I did find one that clearly seems to establish notability (though I did not listen to the podcast): CFO Magazine provides an archive of "…a case study from John Scott, CFO of Network TwentyOne International, a global company providing turnkey training solutions. He'll discuss how his company overcame the challenges of traditional methods and adopted this new generation of technology to automate and improve his processes." Right off the bat, a "global company" that attracts the attention of CFO Magazine seems pretty notable to me.
- Financeguy, I did not mean to ignore your points. I don't know enough about the other sources. I don't speak any Polish, I do not have the books, and so on. I simply can't address your points. I think that Insider already did, but you found his response lacking, just as you found my analysis lacking. We are all suffering for a deplorable lack of adequate responses it seems. :-) —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 14:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting CFO source. How they heck did you narrow down a search to find that one? I'd note we already have a peer reviewed journal article case study [37], however my "opponents" above refuse to even acknowledge it's existence in their comments. As for the Polish documentary, I have a copy and my fiancee is half polish and is fluent. Even without understanding Polish the number of times "network 21" or the N21 logo appears on the screen makes it pretty obvious! That was the case even in the first 10 minutes of the film, a link to which I provided earlier. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bloody Desires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested Prod. Non-notable book. Violates crystal in that it is a "future" bestseller. GregJackP (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete A future best seller whose author is presently 12 years old and doesn't quite grasp Wikipedia yet. Please be kind to the editor, who may need to be advised about putting too much information on the Internet. Acroterion (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, a clearly non-notable forthcoming book. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - "future" book. I have put in a nicely worded note in the author's talk page why we are deleting this --Sodabottle (talk) 08:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As per the previous comments, with a good luck wish to the "future" bestseller's young writer. Warrah (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The title sounds interesting. If I were perusing the fiction section, I would probably be enticed to at least open the cover. Chicken Wing (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Edward321 (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was already speedied. shoy (reactions) 19:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Daniel molina perez (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 person. Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 18:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete tagged for speedy deletion. Borderline attack page. RadioFan (talk) 18:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Poplar and Limehouse (UK Parliament constituency)#Candidates at the 2010 general election. Deleted as a copyvio prior to establishing the redirect. Shimeru (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tim Archer (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)
Aside from the fact that the vast majority of this article is a copyright violation of the "about Tim" page of his local party website, I do not believe that this article meets the general notability criteria. Neither local councillors nor parliamentary candidates are inherently notable and have never been considered to be so on Wikipedia - his media profile is distinctly local and is no greater than any other PPC or active local councillor. Note that this is covered in point 3 of WP:POLITICIAN. Rje (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Poplar and Limehouse (UK Parliament constituency)#Candidates at the 2010 general election. The nominator is right that this guy fails WP:POLITICIAN. I think it would be good to follow the "general rule" here and redirect to the election page because most people who punch "Tim Archer" into the search box ought to at least be taken to the election page. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:POLITICIAN is clear. Come back if he's elected as an MP. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Anyone standing against George Galloway gets my approval. Sadly, that's not grounds to keep an article, so redirect like we do for most Parliamentary candidates. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. per WP:SNOW The WordsmithCommunicate 18:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Midnight Sun (novel) (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 article for this unreleased book (an alternative version of Twilight (novel)) does not contain enough non-trivial mentions from independent sources, thus failing WP:NBOOKS and WP:GNG. If one of the sources cited here is not from the author's website, then it is from an interview in which the subject matter is only mentioned in passing. However, this incident is clearly worth a mention, but the information would be better off at Twilight (novel) or Twilight (series). I advise participants of this discussion to observe WP:ITSA; the article should not be kept simply because it is relating to the Twilight franchise. KingOfTheMedia (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I believe there has been enough significant coverage in independent sources to demonstrate notability. Sorting the wheat from the chaff a little, there's:
- This article in The Guardian about potential continuation of the Twilight franchise, a third of which discusses Midnight Sun
- This article in The Observer, entirely about the novel being leaked on the internet
- This article in The Times, on Meyer's decision to discontinue work on the novel
- This piece in The Guardian, summarising the leak and Meyer's reaction, and setting it in the context the performance of Breaking Dawn
- This op-ed piece, again in The Guardian, which offers a paragraph of critical commentary on the issue, plus this piece from the same journalist, dedicating a full column to the same issue from a different angle
- Note: The only reason these examples are from the British broadsheet media specifically is because as a UK editor, I'm far less familiar with which US publications are considered broadsheets and which tabloids. I currently have no firm opinion on whether the topic could be adequately merged into another article, however I believe that's an issue which should have been raised before nominating the article for deletion. Frickative 19:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the sources shown above by Frickative indicate enough coverage to warrant a separate article.--Sodabottle (talk) 08:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep For the reasons stated, plus the fact that the draft is and will preumably continue to be available. --Salvadorrodriguez (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: For the wide range of independent sources cited above. Plus, I agree with Salvadorrodriguez. ♠TomasBat 14:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Topic has received significant independent coverage. Andrea (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dalton Maag (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)
Apparently non-notable company, article remains unreferenced more than three years after being tagged, text is largely promotional claims and a list of products and clients, was deleted after expired PROD but restored at a user's request. Dravecky (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article has been significantly improved since this nomination was made but while there are now references, they are passing mentions of the company or an employee, not the on-point coverage from reliable third-party sources required to prove notability. I would be quite content for this article to survive if that basic proof that this is a notable company per WP:COMPANY is provided. - Dravecky (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, weakly. This is a business that makes computer typefaces. The references supplied are either to directories of similar businesses ("MyFonts" website; An A-Z of type designers book reference), in-passing mentions ("Making [type]faces for publications or corporations has become the staple for companies such as Dalton Maag in London"), or attempts to create inherited notability (one of our typefaces was used by somebody famous). I looked and did not find anything better. I don't see any of this as meeting the general notability guideline, much less the business specific one. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 11:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 07:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Vertical Slice games research (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 or few outside sources to verify its information, and does not appear to have a big enough client base to be notable. Possibly fails WP:SPIP Howan (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:CORP. I guess being discussed in an online article from www.eurogamer.net is better than nothing, but it does not amount to "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources," and I can't find anything else out there that would. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Non notable start up company. May have been liquidated already who knows or cares. Szzuk (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The company has dozens of major clients including 3 of the top 5 publishers in the world, but cannot disclose them on Wikipedia due to NDAs. There are also myriad references and coverage of the company, I just didn't want to create the whole article myself. This month for example, Develop and MCV magazine have a feature on Vertical Slice including an interview with their company director and they are appearing in Edge magazine in July. Their director also spoke at GDC2010 in California last month and has other keynote speeches lined up later in the year. I don't know enough about the company to expand much on their explicit activities, but I am aware of some of their work (and I am loosely affiliated with them). Perhaps they are too small to be on Wikipedia in terms of revenue (I have no idea how much it is), but in terms of significance they hold a fairly notable role in the games industry. I guess you guys have been on here longer though, so I'm not going to argue this unitl the bitter end. I can try and find more references if necessary. Maybe it should be noted that I do know one of the employees of the company and have been to their offices, but I am not trying to plug their products or anything. Zebedee88 (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some references of notability - me again, sorry. Thought I would show some of the coverage so you wouldn't have to look. I don't know what the protocol for presenting this is, so I'll just list them plainly
- transcript of their DevDays talk = http://www.slideshare.net/guest7e5c7c1/devdays-games-ux-talk
- a mention on a UX site (blog?)= http://www.stevebromley.com/blog/2009/12/17/how-real-world-game-usability-testing-is-changing/
- partial online excerpt from a Develop feature (print mag) = http://www.develop-online.net/features/838/Power-to-the-people-test
- another mention? = http://openux.co.kr/?mid=open_gblog&page=3&document_srl=5763
- on the Gamespot podcast next month apparently
- more coverage (The Escapist and Kotaku - two big games coverage sites) on the review score thing, though I wouldn't say this is a particularly good thing, judging by the comments = http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/94490-Company-Predicts-Game-Review-Scores-With-Science http://www.kotaku.com.au/2009/09/company-says-it-can-predict-review-scores-a-year-in-advance/
- University of Sussex website features them in a profile thing = http://www.sussex.ac.uk/research/review2009/digitalsocialmedia.php
- dont know what this is (some game-academic site?) = http://www.acagamic.com/specials/advent-2009/21-game-user-research-making-games-better/
again, I'm not 100% sure what constitutes as notable, so if it is still not notorious enough in your eyes, then I guess I agree with the deletion. Zebedee88 (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I've just read the provided links and unfortunately they don't confer notability. They demonstrate the company exists and is doing a worthwhile job. But most companies are worthwhile and wikipedia can't be a repository for the tens of millions of such companies in the world. Notability is hard to explain simply however I can give you an example, I work for a company with 16,000 employees. It doesn't have a page on wiki, I guess because making baked bean cans and milk cartons is very low key and mundane. A company the size of vertical slice has to be doing something extraordinary or newsworthy on a national scale to be notable. Szzuk (talk) 12:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Concede? Yes OK, I was aware that I didn't totally appreciate the WP:CORP fully, so thanks for clearing that up. I suppose I have no other cause for this company meriting its own Wikipedia page, other than its relative importance in the admittedly small field of UX/games. According to your reasoning, this should be deleted and I have no further cause to dispute that :) Zebedee88 (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mantera The Movie (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. Unreleased future film of questionable notability. Only one independent source, the rest are primary. Not against re-creation if actually completed and released, but this appears to fail WP:NFF at this time. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I'm not seeing the coverage about this movie in advance of its release that would establish it as notable. Perhaps that may change after release, and then would be the time for the article. -- Whpq (talk) 19:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as too soon. It may be in production, but lack of reliable sources toward this film show failure of WP:NF. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Possessed (demo) (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)
Was PRODded a second time as a non-notable demo. Article hasn't improved, and the article itself asserts "No song from this demo appeared on later albums" Jclemens (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per precedent that demos almost never achieve notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I can not find significant coverage for this demo; does not meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow Talk 00:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All relevant information moved to the band's article.-- LYKANTROP ✉ 08:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Most of the ELs are dead (including the link to the demo on the official Gojira website which is otherwise perfectly alive) and those that remain are either not reliable enough for WP or merely give the track listing. Article itself actually strongly suggests the non-notability of the demo, as pointed out. Snowball likely to follow... --Jubilee♫clipman 14:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mark Thorburn (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)
Radio presenter of little or no notability, no awards, no coverage, recent limited local newspaper minor coverage of sacking, raising one event issues and BLP issues of a minor notable person and a locally reported minor scandal being published to a national audience through wikipedia to the detriment of the subject.. Off2riorob (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete given the lack of reliable sources. I would say that he is probably quite a well-known figure in the North East of England due to his work on Metro Radio for many years, but I agree that this is not sufficient. Vl'hurg talk 19:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk)
19:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep - anybody who is in front of the public probably should be represented in Wikipedia, The repository of all information. He may not be Notable but he is probably Notorious enough that people will want to know why/where/when he came on the scene. Raymondwinn (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - fails notability tests. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Person of marginal notability where a lot of coverage only comes from a single negative event. RayTalk 21:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nom. Non-admin closure. shoy (reactions) 19:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good & Evil (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)
Unreleased upcoming album with no reliable nor independent sources. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawal nom. Noticed a couple of independent sources now. A bit Youtube heavy still however. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Shimeru (talk) 07:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Brownism (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 has existed since April 2007 and is uncited, no such thing exists. Delete, no content of any value to merge. Off2riorob (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unsourced twaddle, nothing worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Crap. Not even worth the word delete. Szzuk (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, without prejudice to re-posting something better sourced. A list of ministers broadly considered to be allies of Brown by third-party sources might be acceptable. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Pathetic. Nageh (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think this needs to be kept, it is an important part of British Politics and needs to be kept to highlight the differences between brown and blair. 91.104.174.164 (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Completely unsourced and no sign of notability. Looks like some pretty transient naming of a (non-)movement. Nageh (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Puffy (mascot) (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 secondary sources, listy weirdness. Already covered sufficiently in OpenBSD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The mascot is not notable, and should be discussed briefly on the OpenBSD article rather than on its own article. Intelligentsium 20:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Sources seem to render the initial argument weak. Shimeru (talk) 07:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tim Marriott (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)
Known for starring in The Brittas Empire, but that's about it, so fails WP:ENT No.1 : significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. On a cursory search I couldn't find any evidence of a significant West End writing career post-Brittas. MickMacNee (talk) 14:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I was able to find two of his plays meeting mary and pete-n-me, reviewed in RS. I have no idea if this constitutes a significant contribution as a playwright. I have added the sources to the article.--Sodabottle (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment... so he has a bit more going for than the 52 episodes of The Brittas Empire he did from 1991-1997, with his plays being reviewed. Perhaps someone else who is pushing at ENT just a wee bit. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Marriott seems like the real thing to me. The theater credits - even by themselves - makes this subject notable. Evalpor (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (reading Sodabottle's links): The Guardian's review of Meeting Mary states "Tim Marriott's play ... quite the worst I've seen this year ... is inept in almost every respect." The Stage Review of Pete ‘n’ Me, while crediting Marriot's piece as "skilfully woven", devotes almost the entire page to reviewing everything but the writing. In addition, Meeting Mary was staged at the 70 seat Jermyn Street Theatre, while Pete ‘n’ Me was at the 80 seat New End Theatre, these are not exactly high profile West End venues, these are fringe venues. These facts don't seem like evidence of a notable playwright to me, certainly not the required evidence of a "significant role" in the world of theatre. MickMacNee (talk) 01:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What a particular reviewer thinks of Marriott's play should mean nothing in here. The very fact of a published review, favorable or unfavorable, attests to notability. Provincial theatrical venues are perfectly legitimate professional showcases for any playwright. Evalpor (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Evalpor is correct. A theater review need not be only positive in order to be considered. A theatrical production is not a film release and is not judged the same way. While a film might run in thousands of movie houses during its theatrical release, a stage play usually is in one theater at a time, and is then critiqued by area reviewers. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't read ENT to mean that Wikipedia deems any playwright who simply gets a couple of plays to be staged in minor theatres, is automatically notable, especially not without considering the works impact. If I've missed some other theatre specific guideline or precedent, show me. I will freely admit, stage writer bios are not my forte, I brought him to Afd primarily as a one piece television actor, having not found what I considered significant feats in other works, per ENT. MickMacNee (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor does anyone else engaged in this discussion, MickMacNee. It just so happens that an actor whom you believe to be non-notable as an actor also happens to be a working playwright. I'm not convinced that Tim Marriott is non-notable as an actor, but what IS clear is that his additional efforts as a playwright make his non-notability far less probable. You have yourself admitted that playwrights are not your chief area of concern, so I don't think you should presume to know just what is or isn't involved in getting a theatre company to produce an original play. Furthermore, to assume that regional newspaper reviews have no voice in the overall culture of theatrical production is, at least in my view, highly problematic. Broadway bound plays very often are "tried out" on the road, as I'm sure you know. What I am certain of is this: the process of evaluating these articles is itself more important than the conclusions that are reached. If it turns out that Tim Marriott's article remains in Wikipedia following the conclusion of this discussion, I'm sure that the article will have been improved due to the extra attention you brought to it. Evalpor (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't read ENT to mean that Wikipedia deems any playwright who simply gets a couple of plays to be staged in minor theatres, is automatically notable, especially not without considering the works impact. If I've missed some other theatre specific guideline or precedent, show me. I will freely admit, stage writer bios are not my forte, I brought him to Afd primarily as a one piece television actor, having not found what I considered significant feats in other works, per ENT. MickMacNee (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Evalpor is correct. A theater review need not be only positive in order to be considered. A theatrical production is not a film release and is not judged the same way. While a film might run in thousands of movie houses during its theatrical release, a stage play usually is in one theater at a time, and is then critiqued by area reviewers. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What a particular reviewer thinks of Marriott's play should mean nothing in here. The very fact of a published review, favorable or unfavorable, attests to notability. Provincial theatrical venues are perfectly legitimate professional showcases for any playwright. Evalpor (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Cover Up (pricing game) (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, unsourced article. Adequately covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Google search results in only YouTube links and fansites plus one link to the official site. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per ever-growing precedent that TPIR's pricing games are not notable. This one has not proven to be the subject of any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete as per WP:N and also per TenPoundHammer's reasoning. This article is also unsourced and we also have the game covered in the list as per Sottolacqua's reasons. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No third-party sources to verify the notability of this game - in fact no sources at all. Delete per nom. feydey (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 17:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Engineering education in Taiwan (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 non-notable topic. Reads like advertising for the universities that offer engineering degrees. Wizard191 (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In principle, the topic is notable enough, although the current article is uninspiring. Perhaps someone who reads Chinese could expand the article, possibly based on any relevant articles in the Chinese-language Wikipedias and appropriate reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I disagree with the nominator; this is a perfectly notable topic. Sure it's spammy but that can be cleaned up editorially. TerriersFan (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete I Have significantly cut down the pov in this article and advertising spam. If you disagree with my edit please revert it. After cutting information that seemed povish there is not much left to the article describing why its notable as a stand alone. Alot of the materials seems to be a from sysnthesis and i dont know how much is actually true. I think as said above it could be devloped and saved, but someone with knowledge behind the material needs to step forward and help fix it (perhaps making a list article???). Otherwise as the nominator states its notability is questionable and demands adequate secondary sourcing. Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I disagree that the topic is notable. Every industrialized countries has higher education and offers degrees. We do not have articles on every combination of major and country, nor should we. And the article gives no indication as to why engineering in Taiwan is particularly notable. Readin (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep That it is not well-written is beyond dispute; whether or not it is 'notable' is unclear, for the term is vague. If the relevant principle is that whenever it is the case that many Xs have Ys, an article which proclaims little more than that yet another X has Y should be deleted, then wikipedia would lose many, many entries. Were that principle to be widely applied, I would endorse 'delete'. But that principle isn't widely applied, and this article might, eventually, be carefully developed by some properly informed person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.121.35.248 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is precisely defined on Wikipedia here: Notability. Please review it to see if you still think the article is notable per the guideline. Wizard191 (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I do thank you for the observation, but having read the guidelines as regards what constitutes 'notability', I conclude that we use the term 'precise' differently. But since I don't plan to present an analysis of those guidelines here, I cannot fault you. I'll just note that the guidelines indicate that what matters is not necessarily whether a given article satisfies the guidelines. What matters is whether the article 'could readily' satisfy those guidelines. My 'keep' vote merely indicates that I believe those guidelines (such as they are) could be satisfied. Again though, I thank you for the observation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.128.136.30 (talk) 15:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pop U! (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)
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC and there is no assertion of notability for this demo. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails MUSIC and GNG. Jclemens (talk) 16:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The demo is briefly mentioned here, but without more significant coverage, it does not pass WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow Talk 00:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pocketwatch (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)
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. Sources on this page are of questionable credibility and a Google search turns up mostly torrents and social media sites. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The spiel about demos is irrelevant as this isn't a demo - it's a commercial release on the Simple Machines label. Try Google Books - there are plenty of books covering it, and Grohl is sufficiently notable that an official release is also going to be notable.--Michig (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. couldn't have said it better than Michig did. this is a significantly notable release, NOT a "demo". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.231.173 (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a demo album, consequently, it is in Category:Demo albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is NOT a "demo album" - where are you getting your information?? As previously stated, the ALBUM was released by a legitimate label, Simple Machines. (the label is now defunct, but still has a website up at www.simplemachines.net) Grohl may have referred to Pocketwatch as a "demo" in the past, like he has also done with the self-titled Foo Fighters album. I guess under your standards, that page should be nominated for deletion as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.231.173 (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Clearly, you do not understand me. See demo album and WP:MUSIC. I do not create the standards for notability and demo albums can be released by legitimate labels; where are you getting this? If the first Foo Fighters album was a demo, then it should be in Category:Demo albums as well, but I would not nominate it for deletion, because I have read and understood WP:MUSIC; I suggest you do the same. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do understand you, I'm just baffled. Hopefully someone with stronger WIKI skills than I can stick up for the notability of this important album.
- Comment It's simple: find credible and verifiable third-party sources that assert the notability of this album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Regardless of if it's a demo album or not, how is an album by Dave Grohl not notable, especially after songs from Pocketwatch later appeared on releases by both Nirvana and Foo Fighters? This was the debut of Grohl playing an instrument besides the drums on a released recording, and other than the Scream song "Gods Look Down," this album would also be Grohl's vocal debut. A really interesting, little-talked-about part of a very famous musicians career. The article could be expanded/improved, but definitely should not be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.161.121.124 (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the problem here is that the nominator is stuck on the term "demo" to describe this release. Even if something started life as a stereotypical "demo" it can graduate to "album" if it is released by a legitimate record label (rather than self-released by the artist) and attains notability, as is certainly the case here. Concerning reliable sources, Michig above is correct about the Google Book search, which reveals coverage by sources such as Rolling Stone and various well-known music journalists. Just because a regular Google search doesn't easily locate online sources is no reason to assume something has received no coverage. "Pocketwatch" was a demo that became an album and is of great historic interest in the careers of three different noteworthy acts (Dave Grohl, Foo Fighters, Nirvana), and the article really needs expansion rather than deletion. Also, the nominator's statement that the album is in the "Demo Albums" category because it is a demo (or vice-versa) is tautological at best and myopic at worst. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did not say that it was a demo album because it is in Category:Demo albums, I said that it was in that category because it is a demo album. Demo albums can be released by record labels, but they remain demos (Hints, Allegations, and Things Left Unsaid, Magnapop, Nebraska.) Why the false dichotomy between demo albums and label-released albums? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment about above comment - 1) There is certainly a dichotomy but whether it's "false" is a matter of opinion. 2) I have not inspected the article history so closely, but whoever put the article in the category was a volunteer editor just like the rest of us. Or a bot did it automatically because the word "demo" is in the article text. Either way, categorization is not proof of anything. 3) Regardless of how closely we adhere to the guideline about demos and notability, that same guideline does not have a precise definition of the term "demo" itself. People here (including me) are arguing that "Pocketwatch" transcends a narrow definition of "demo" and should be judged accordingly. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. 98.210.231.173 (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Defaulting to keep on the strength of Brentyoung's work with the article, and trusting his commitment to continue to improve it. No prejudice to later reconsideration if that doesn't occur. Shimeru (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jatheon Technologies (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)
Balant advertisement KlausVetter (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The entire article reads like an advertisement about a non-notable company. :( References are all from the company website, and I don't consider any of the external links as credible sources either. The main contributor seems to be an employee or the owner of the company, which is a clear conflict of interest. The product links further make this article seem rather spammy; possibly even a canditate for speedy deletion. --Zabadab (Talk) @ 13:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, should have been speedily deleted as unambiguous advertising: non-intrusive network appliances which simplify archiving, retrieval, backup/disaster recovery, and dynamic monitoring of corporate email and messaging data to meet email archiving compliance requirements. The more dynamic you are, the more intrusive you will be. Can't be helped; can't have it both ways. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - hold on a second folks. The point of wikipedia is to enable constant editing and improving of valuable entries, no? This company, while small, is making waves in the email archiving space and should be on our radar screens. I am not an employee or owner of the company. I will take the criticism of the entry sounding too much like an advertisement (just using the immediately available information on the web) to improve the entry. Thank you. Brentyoung (talk) 16:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- Update - I removed a lot of the advertising-ish language and sharpened the language and references. Will continue improving. Thank you. Brentyoung (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yong Suk Jang (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)
WP:Academic Albrechtbrown (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think this academic passes WP:PROF just yet. He has some cited papers, but an h-index of 7 or so on Gscholar ([38] my search was restricted to the social sciences owing to the existence of a biologist with the same name), his vita [39] does not, at first glance, show evidence of passing any of the other WP:PROF requirements. He looks like an up-and-coming young associate prof - in other words, a typical academic who may become notable with time. RayTalk 21:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete. As above GS cites are 348, 36, 29, 21, 19, 10, 8.... Despite high cites of first item, not quite there yet. Too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Delete Not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tai-Young Kim (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)
WP:Academic Albrechtbrown (talk) 13:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Gscholar search restricted to business and social science fields (owing to existence of collisions when searching generally) gives an h-index of 9, rank is only associate professor, PhD in 2000, and cv does not provide any other apparent signs of passing WP:PROF. RayTalk 21:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Another too early. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nom. Non-admin closure. shoy (reactions) 19:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Frederick Douglass Prize (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 prize Codf1977 (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC) further gnews hits found that did not come up first time round - nom withdrawn. Sorry Codf1977 (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- snowball keep (article author) $25 k ain't hay, just as notable as the Lincoln Prize and George Washington Book Prize Pohick2 (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This was a tricky one to review, as there is an overwhelming majority in favour of keeping this article. However, many of the arguments I have reviewed are substantially lacking in substance, or relevance; furthermore, many have come from single-purpose accounts. While their arguments have been given due consideration, many do not provide the policy-based arguments or sources that we require, and therefore some "keep"s are asserting reliable sources which are simply not considered reliable.
That is not to say, however, that all of the "keep"s are a result of this canvassing. The "delete"s put across good arguments and successfully discounted some of the sources and arguments provided. After discounting the arguments I did not consider strong enough, I arrived at a consensus to delete, and believe this decision is an appropriate use of admin discretion. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:spa|username}} ; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}} . |
- PlaneShift (video game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
Game has been in development since 2004, but is still in alpha stage. Few, if any, secondary sources and much of the editing to this article has been done by one or more of the game's developers. I am particularly interested in this game genre, especially since it is available for OS X, but had never heard of this game until I came across an unblock request for one of the editors, so I don't think it meets the standards of notability. —DoRD (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Article lacks any real sources. Previous AfD was keep and no concensus several years ago on the grounds that it would be properly sourced. Article hasn't changed any since then and is only having more trivial information added by creator of the game. No real player base or signs of notability. SpigotMap 13:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia clearly has an anti-PlaneShift bias for some reason I just can't fathom. This is a very important project, the only open source MMO of any repute, and it has over 500,000 players worldwide. You're telling me that's not notable? Ever hear of a little magazine called PC Gamer? They sure seem to think PlaneShift is notable. The German edition of PC Gamer anyway. In conclusion, this AFD is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, WP:LIBEL, and WP:NPA. Keep your hands off my Planeshift, Wikipedia! Lucap1978 (talk) 13:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Saying PlaneShift has or has had 500,000 players is an outright misleading lie. It simply has had that many accounts created. That in no way equates to number of actual players or even game downloads, as seen in my comment below. Poehappy (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The previous AfD referred to above is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlaneShift (computer game). It did indeed conclude with "no consensus". Much of the discussion there was argument about what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines say, rather than about whether this article had reliable sources. If I wade through all that to look at the relevant parts of the discussion, I find that the "keep" arguments are to a large extent based on "I know that there are reliable sources" without indicating what they are. When links to "sources" were provided they were mostly to trivial mentions, unreliable sources, or sources not independent of the subject, and often to sources failing by all three of these criteria. One of the sources given was to an online copy of an advertising poster for the game! (I kid you not.) I think that rather than "no consensus" the conclusion should have been "among those actually arguing in accordance with Wikipedia policy there is consensus for deletion". However, I sympathise with the administrator who worked through the great text wall in that discussion, and I do not criticise him/her for their decision, as it is very difficult to see the overall picture in such a mass. I think, in fact, that the whole situation was well summarised by Vassyana in the comment All sources provided that I have seen are trivial mentions and user-submitted articles & reviews. ... Despite the vigorous efforts to dig up sources, not a single non-trivial reference with appropriate editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking has been provided. Despite the vigorous endorsement of a fanbase, there seems to be little to no real-world notability for the project. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The situation has not progressed from how it was when the last AfD took place, as described above. The sources cited in the article are almost not independent, some of them are unreliable (blog post etc) and some are trivial mentions. No evidence at all of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly disagree, a list of new sources have been added in the last week, including international collaborations. Lot more can be found on the net. --Xyz231 (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then i would say: WP:SOFIXIT. If there are plenty of reliable sources it would be no problem at all to add them to the article right? Even so, most sources added last week are trivial mentions or primary sources. That is - for me - the entire issue with this article. There are mentions here and there, but nothing really substantional. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 15:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral. I see there is some coverage on gaming websites, including a few news article's, and i don't doubt the 500.000 player claim which indicates this is at least more then a kitchen project. However, searches don't come up with anything that i would normally accept as a reliable source. For something in development 6 years already it received quite little press coverage. It would seem to be notable enough, but it lacks verifiability. Ill remain neutral for now, as i simply cannot decide if the amount of trivial coverage, awards and game size outweigh the lack of any "Real" references. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 14:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's not fall for WP:BIG. From what I see, 500,000 is the alleged number of all registered accounts. The number of actual players is probably less than one-tenth of that. According to the official website, the game only has hundreds of active players[40]. — Rankiri (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The game has hundreds of concurrent players, which is a lot different than the total audience. PlaneShift has a turnover of players in one day of several hundreds. --Xyz231 (talk) 15:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My point is that notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources. — Rankiri (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- *Sigh*. No, the "500.000 users" part was not a part of my "neutral" vote, but used to state the project is at least not made up or so minor that no one ever heard from it. Even so, i keep my vote at neutral. The article had reliable coverage independent of the subject and a claim to notability, but the "Significant" part is lacking here. As said there is some coverage on gaming websites, but most of those seem similar to press releases. There are quite a few mentions of the game in reliable sources, some not even gaming related, but i cannot seem to find any source that is more then a mention. In other words: Neutral. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs) 15:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To give a bit of reference on this '500,000' number, this is a result of a server query on February 11, 2007
- Total PS accounts: 340,000+
- Accounts never used: 112114
- Total characters used less than an hour : 141557 (four characters can be made per account)
- Total characters active more than ten hours: 9416
- Accounts active in the last 30 days: 14787
- Accounts created in the last 30 days: 18103
- Accounts created in the last 30 days never used: 7614
- Active accounts older than 30 days: 4297
- Accounts active in the last week: 3632
- Active accounts in the last day: 1021
- I hope that brings things into perspective. If you want more current data, you can ask the developers to do another query. Note that the above figures include people who register more than one account (some very active players register 10 or more), accounts that never got an email activation and the user made another, accounts that were created without ever downloading the game (or downloaded and failed to run), people trying the game, leaving, then coming back to check it out and forgetting their old passwords, as well as a number of other factors that inflate the number of accounts far beyond the number of actual people who have tried the game. Poehappy (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your data is not sourced, and so not reliable. Anyway if that data was true, it shows a turnover of 3632 players in one week and 1021 in one day, which is surely more than needed to say it has lot of players. --Xyz231 (talk) 03:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, and btw — Poehappy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Again, you are confusing number of players with number of accounts created. The data was copied from this thread where Vengeance/Keith Fulton- Server Engine Leader, edited the data last. Also as said, have a dev query the server for up to date data. Of course, I assume you could claim that is also unreliable data as it is not from a 3rd party. Look, I don't really care if PlaneShift is deleted here or not. I simply thought I would shed some light on this arbitrary WP:BIG and wrongly used number of 'players'. If a yellow dog is sitting next to a gas station, it is not notable just because 1,000 people a day drive by that spot and see it, or even pet it. If it was a juggling dog with two heads, now that would be notable. Find more reasons why PlaneShift is a juggling dog, not a gas station. Poehappy (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC) By the way, thanks for the friendly contribution tag. Here's yours. — Xyz231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I suggest you read this as well. WP:ENN[reply]
- Keep. PlaneShift has been a major influence to all free games in existance today, being one of the first to start the "free" genre, it has changed the life of hundreds of people, who contributed to the development and to the creation of a free virtual life world. It is today one of the very few, if not the only open source mmorpg engine with all needed features to make a real game. In additions there has been plenty of notable collaborations, and mentions which are in the page. Just search for PlaneShift on google, and you will find hundreds of sites where you can download the game. It has been reviewing in every single mmorpg web site, and in most magazines. If you are going to delete this article you will have to delete half of the articles present in wikipedia. --Xyz231 (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC) — Xyz231 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- I'm sorry but these are not valid arguments. Please see WP:IKNOWIT, WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:GHITS, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, and WP:OTHERSTUFF. — Rankiri (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those are not valid arguments? That's ridiculous, I'm out of here. You make this place a mess. Do whatever you want with the article. --Xyz231 (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the links that explain the problems with those arguments? At any rate, I am INTENSELY skeptical that this is among the first free games ever released. Or that "free" is a "genre". - Vianello (Talk) 03:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. its the only truely free MMORPG i know of, as for no reliable sources, # ^ http://www.omgn.com/news.php?Item_ID=300 # ^ http://assets1.csc.com/lef/downloads/1142_1.pdf # ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKSYJYV_RGs ^ a b c TUX December 2006 Issue 20, Pg 60 # ^ http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/planeshift/index.html?tag=result;title;0 # ^ a b c (Spanish) https://www.linux-magazine.es/issue/18/Planeshift.pdf Maby not as many as you would like, but they are there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.39.251 (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC) — 70.32.39.251 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: The majority of these sources, even though published by reliable sources, are contributed by the PlaneShift creator and/or PlaneShift developers, making them still primary sources. SpigotMap 15:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's your evidence of those claims? Why you challenges independent studies and other web sites? If that's not valid, then nothing is. --Xyz231 (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because many of them are not published by the staff of the magazine/game site/whatever. They are sites where anyone can submit a review. Just because they are on a notable site doesn't make them reliable sources. SpigotMap 15:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WoW 90+% of those are released by blizzard, reviews on game sites or whatnot. I say we request that WOW gets removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.39.251 (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because many of them are not published by the staff of the magazine/game site/whatever. They are sites where anyone can submit a review. Just because they are on a notable site doesn't make them reliable sources. SpigotMap 15:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What's your evidence of those claims? Why you challenges independent studies and other web sites? If that's not valid, then nothing is. --Xyz231 (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was really excited when I heard about Planeshift, several years ago, but I was under the impression that the project was dead. All the sources being cited here (other than blogs and the primary source) are out-dated. If the notability was in question back then... Are there any new articles done on Planeshift? Spacexplosion (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a few new ones including http://www.windows7download.com/win7-planeshift/cnztmxui.html for example --70.32.39.251 (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see where the article is in that source. Please point it out, all I see is a release and game description. SpigotMap 16:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It shows the current release, the date for the release, as gives a brief description. Also considering its a forums for windows 7 doesn't that show that its current? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.39.251 (talk)
- It does do that, but it does not qualify as a reliable source and does not assert any notability. Thanks for the clarification. SpigotMap 16:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It shows the current release, the date for the release, as gives a brief description. Also considering its a forums for windows 7 doesn't that show that its current? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.39.251 (talk)
- I fail to see where the article is in that source. Please point it out, all I see is a release and game description. SpigotMap 16:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I'm in agreement with JamesBWatson. The last AfD was concluded with a keep only with the expectation that more sources would follow. There have been no new articles added that are not: trivial mentions, blog/forum posts, or download mirrors with a copy-paste description. Spacexplosion (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No edits except this page — Spacexplosion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Xyz231 (talk) 23:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read the article you linked to? "Existing editors should act fairly, civily, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time." I've edited before without an account, and participating in a AfD finally prompted me to register. I should not have to explain that. Would you like to defend yourself not being a sock puppet now? Spacexplosion (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Before I vote, I have a question. The article references what appears to be three independent reliable sources: one in Linux Format, another one in TUX Magazine, and one more in Spanish Linux Magazine. Why the nomination then? MagV (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because some people got banned for flaming Planeshift so they go around and flame everywhere else -note: apparently this is derogatory? Id be more then happy to prove what was said here. --70.32.39.251 (talk) 16:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: AfD has been canvassed on the game's forum here. Meat Puppetting may occur. SpigotMap 16:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Asking users to clean up the page and add sources is Meat Puppetting? Seems more like asking people to fix a problem. If sources are cleaned up then there seems no reason to delete it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.39.251 (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You gave a link to this AfD and asked users to "Join the Fight". You didn't say "Hey let's add sources to the article and improve its quality." SpigotMap 17:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That one line was removed happy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.39.251 (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You gave a link to this AfD and asked users to "Join the Fight". You didn't say "Hey let's add sources to the article and improve its quality." SpigotMap 17:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I personally confirmed that the TUX magazine has significant coverage of the subject. I don't have a direct link to the article but you can take a look at its text here. The review by Linux Magazine Spain ([41](translation)) appears to be acceptable. There is also this overly excited review on about.com but it's not clear whether it can be considered a reliable source (e.g., see RSN/Archive27). The rest of the links on PlaneShift (video game) and WP:Articles for deletion/PlaneShift (computer game) don't show significant coverage of the subject by independent reliable sources. According to the Linux Format's admin, their coverage of the subject was fairly limited[42]. — Rankiri (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I believe that there are a sufficient number of reliable third-party sources to demonstrate notability, although I'd agree that the present state of the article is disappointing. The list may not be exhaustive:
- Brief review at GameDev.net, which is a reliable industry insider, alongside Gamasutra.
- GamersHell has news articles, screenshots, etc.
- StrategyInformer has details, screenshots, etc.
- GameSpot has details, screenshots, etc.
- MMORPG.com may be considered unreliable by some: open to debate. Contains some information.
- GiantBomb provides some information.
- mmo5.com may be considered unreliable by some: open to debate. Contains some information.
- Going by the above, the two votes for deletion concern the sources cited within the article. Granted, the references are almost entirely derived from the subject's own website, but since there are reliable third-party sources that have not been included, I think the article should be kept and improved rather than deleted. Mephistophelian † 17:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- None of these are WP:RS sources with significant coverage. Gamedev's coverage is very superficial; GiantBomb's page is fully editable; and the rest of the sites only provide basic listing descriptions like "PlaneShift is a free 3D MMORPG, and features 12 different races, AI controlled NPCs, and an evolving world". — Rankiri (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of the above sources, only the first looks to be written by an editor, the rest look like press releases and are on sites where anyone can press the "add game" button and submit a game. SpigotMap 17:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Significant coverage" according to wikipedia "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." It is one fourth of the article, sure it is not as long as the others, however it is a main topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.39.251 (talk)
- Keep. As pointed out by others, the sources at linux-magazine.es, Warcry Network, gamedev.net and gamespot appear to be sufficient to establish notability. The awards won, according to the article, also establish notability.-gadfium 20:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there anything anywhere about being notable by mass minor notability rather then one major notable post? Sure someone could be paid to write an article on planeshift but would that make it more notable? PS: I did a thesis on it, does that count if its online? Personally I think that its not acceptable to use your own writing as a source.--76.90.200.238 (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, your thesis is not a reliable source SpigotMap 12:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See the issue is that if I hadn't said it was mine, it would be reliable, that's part of the issue. How do you and everyone else know what was submitted to other sites via the "Submit a game" (that i have yet to see on any site) button? If the text is IDENTICAL that is another story, however most of the time it is just smiler. If two people write about a yellow dog is them both saying its a yellow dog incorrect? Personally I can only think of so many ways to write that so that it doesn't sound exactly the same. --71.107.198.239 (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true. Even if published to a notable source, it's up to the discretion of the editors to judge if a source is a reliable source or not. It's not only about where it's published but who published it. If a source is disputed it is brought to the attention of other editors to establish if the source is a reliable source or not. SpigotMap 14:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See the issue is that if I hadn't said it was mine, it would be reliable, that's part of the issue. How do you and everyone else know what was submitted to other sites via the "Submit a game" (that i have yet to see on any site) button? If the text is IDENTICAL that is another story, however most of the time it is just smiler. If two people write about a yellow dog is them both saying its a yellow dog incorrect? Personally I can only think of so many ways to write that so that it doesn't sound exactly the same. --71.107.198.239 (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If your thesis is vetted by a thesis committee and then published by your university, then by Wikipedia standards it is a reliable source, and you should definitely add a citation to the article. Who wrote it and whether or not it is available online is irrelevant.
- Note however that for purposes of establishing notability a source should also be independent of the subject, which may or may not be the case with your thesis. You can read up on notability if you want to understand the requirements better.
- -- MagV (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, your thesis is not a reliable source SpigotMap 12:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, Gamespot has no significant coverage of the subject. The review in WarCry Network appears to be a blog entry[43]. The GameDev article only has a couple of repetitive paragraphs on the Crystal Space-based code and no actual coverage of the game itself. From these four sources, only linux-magazine.es seems to be acceptable. — Rankiri (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there anything anywhere about being notable by mass minor notability rather then one major notable post? Sure someone could be paid to write an article on planeshift but would that make it more notable? PS: I did a thesis on it, does that count if its online? Personally I think that its not acceptable to use your own writing as a source.--76.90.200.238 (talk) 05:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I think PlaneShift is a very important Open Source MMORPG game. As far as I know there is no other OSS MMORPG game of this size in existance. Perhaps this alone does not qualify as inclusion in wikipedia but then I wonder why articles about similar (but less advanced) projects as WorldForge are not considered for deletion then? JorritTyb (talk) 11:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC) — JorritTyb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- PlaneShift (the game) is not Open Source, only the gaming engine is. The same could be said about Quake 3 -- the fact that the user base of this game does not understand this is rather disgusting. Donations to this game require you to sign over your copyrights. You create a rule, a map, or a character, and you want it used in the game? What do you think about losing the ability to ever give that creation to another open source game? Yes, this is the PlaneShift way. With this said, this should have nothing to do with vote. Evan Carroll (talk) 15:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course jorrit understands that, he wrote the engine after all, and is a major developer on its primary user, PlaneShift. 72.65.133.240 (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, PlaneShift as a game is not really open. As to Open Source, I'm in doubt on that. The engine itself is surely Open Source (it is GPL) but the art is not open. On the other hand the art is also not source. So all source that there is is actually open. But anyway. This has little to do with the validity of this article I believe. As to signing over your copyrights for art you contribute to PlaneShift, that is true. And personally I would not do it for my own games that I create. However, you still have the freedom to contribute and all art contributors know this license in advance very well. They don't step into this and then suddenly realize they cannot use their art in something else. The license and what they are allowed to do with it is made very clear to everyone. Also this fact is very well known in the community. There has been sufficient coverage and hype on this topic already. JorritTyb (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I believe the game's few sources are because of misleading publicity. The game itself is not open source and it seems as if these magazines all bring attention to it under the guise of open-ness. I don't believe the few sources qualify it for inclusion; and, I believe the sources that mention it along with words 'open', or 'gpl' and don't shed light on the proprietary license used for the actual game are dishonest at best. The game has never had a production release, and has stagnated for a decade without any societal contribution to the game-component. Evan Carroll (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This point is not valid at all. The openess has nothing to do with the request of deletion. I can easily argue that PlaneShift is more open than the 99% of the games in existance, because 99% are closed source. --Xyz231 (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Editorial: The game is not open, if you believe the game is open and not proprietary (as compared to the engine) then you should strongly do some research before casting a vote. Start by reading the article in question. I only say that because at least 3 people have gotten this wrong. Evan Carroll (talk) 15:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- as there still seems to be some confusion about the license of the game, I'd like to add some clarification: while it's true that the major part of the game's data and art lies under a proprietary license, it's not true that *only* the source is GPL'd. there's also a minimalistic set of data and art available under the GPL on the svn repository [44] (check out art and trunk/src/server/database). While those may not reflect the data used by the official servers, they're still sufficient to start off your own server and explore the basic game mechanics. RlyDontKnow (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)— RlyDontKnow (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Your point is not valid. Are you saying that only open projects can stay on Wikipedia? The openess of the project has nothing to do with the validity to keep the article or not. --Xyz231 (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your point is not valid as you are the creator of the game and have a major conflict of interest here. It does have something to do with the AfD as it helps establish if sources are valid or not. SpigotMap 18:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) how do you know he is the creator 2) his point is still valid regardless. 3) he isnt the creator Talad gave up on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.39.251 (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- yeah, they banned Lucap1978 (talk · contribs) yesterday, didn't you notice? 72.65.133.240 (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) how do you know he is the creator 2) his point is still valid regardless. 3) he isnt the creator Talad gave up on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.39.251 (talk) 18:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your point is not valid as you are the creator of the game and have a major conflict of interest here. It does have something to do with the AfD as it helps establish if sources are valid or not. SpigotMap 18:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I just would like to point out that User:SpigotMap is the only user that's continuosly adding banners (last one few minutes ago) to the PlaneShift (video game) to discredit the article and the game. He is deleting content since weeks, despite the work of plenty of other users to add useful references, information and completness to the article. You cannot find a single good addition from him to that page, just banners, removals of references, deletiion of content. --Xyz231 (talk) 20:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Maintenance Templates are there to bring light to the fact that the article has problems. It has nothing to do with the article subject, it is simply so other Wikipedia editors know there is a problem with the page. If you fix the problems you're more then welcome to remove them. Furthermore, if you have a concern with my editing or my conduct, bring it up on the administrator's noticeboard, this is not the place. This page is for the discussion of deleting/not deleting this article. SpigotMap 21:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I've reviewed the list of references now, and I this this game meets the standards of notability. I agree it's not a top notch game, but from my point of view the sources mentioned are enough to express a 'keep' vote. --64.119.157.82 (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. From what I can see, at least two sources already cited in the article provide reliable and independent coverage, and are sufficient to establish it's notability. Other considerations such as the game being in alpha stage, the article being edited by the game's creator or the game not being free can not be a basis for a deletion. MagV (talk) 10:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The ohloh sites main point is "Ohloh Analysis Summary" that's them saying THEY looked at it and verified it, think of it as a seal of approval. Also you just said there are 2 sources that fully meet the WP:RS the others can be questioned i suppose, although how can you prove that they were submitted by them? the ones with C&P text can be proved that way, the rest please inform me of how you know. Also what about the google talk's invite? while the talk itself was done by a developer the invite was not, as such google seems to think its notable. Again on warcry check the author "Thomas -Mystery- Valley posted on 29 October 2003 3:52 am" look at his other articles, not submitted by PS or AB. Also your lack of access to TUX does not make it non-notable you have to prove that its not a notable source. Also web3d.org and csc.com are secondary sources, even if they use primary sources to get some of there information. If they are not secondary sources, then there is no such thing. Everything gets its information from primary sources, then gets read and regurgitated by secondary sources. --76.90.200.238 (talk) 18:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep - first of all, the references will need vetting for reliability. It's pretty indiscriminate and there are a lot of sites linked to that simply do not pass WP:RS. However, trawling through them I see one piece of significant coverage I'm happy to accept (About.com). I'm not completely convinced by OMGN or Warcry, I'll have to investigate further later. Marasmusine (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 07:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Internet Download 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 have been unable to find any significant coverage of this software product. Non-notable. Haakon (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Reviews by CHIP ([48] (translation)), Softpedia ([49]), and PC Magazine ([50], [51]) establish notability. — Rankiri (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's an excellent program that I have used. I used it to rip whole websites selectively to my hard drive. I have no doubt there are plenty of sources. Szzuk (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep It need sources to improve article quality. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 11:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Download Accelerator Plus (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 have been unable to find any significant coverage of this software product. Non-notable. Haakon (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], etc. — Rankiri (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Rankiri. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 11:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedily closed as moot. Body of the article was: Section 420, I.P.C. was the original title, in the Civil and Military Gazette (April 30 1886) of In the House of Suddhoo, a short story by Rudyard Kipling collected in Plain Tales from the Hills (1888). To me, this suggested a fairly obvious redirect target, and as such I will redirect the article accordingly. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Section 420, I.P.C. (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)
Googled it, no notability. It's also an orphan article, which also indicates its lack of notability — Timneu22 · talk 12:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Larry Bryson (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)
State court trial judge in Missouri. I don't think that's enough for notability per WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Trial judges should definitely not be presumed notable. Some might attract significant coverage in reliable sources. But not, it appears, this guy. As you'd expect, the only coverage that mentions his name mentions his name as part of the cases he hears [57]. He's not the actual subject of the coverage, so there's nothing on which a reliable article could be written. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- delete On the state level, we accept as presumptively notable members of the state's highest court, which for Missouri is the Supreme Court of Missouri, Very few members of any state intermediate appellate court have articles; the Missouri Court of Appeals, has 32 members-- none with articles, I am inclined to think personally we might do well to extend presumptive notability to this level but I am not sure the community is very likely to accept it at present. There are 141 circuit court judge in Missouri. I am very inclusionist on local officials, but I am not prepared to advocate we ought to extent presumptive notability to this level. There is always the exception of when one can shown notability for the specific individual by non-routine significant published coverageThe article presently does not indicate any. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lower-level jurist who has not achieved notability through other means. The original author created this article in a futile attempt to balance out another (promotional) article about Bryson's opponent in an upcoming election. Insufficient coverage from reliable sources to establish notability. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ariel Israel Zeckler (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)
Makes a number of claims to importance (making it fail A7) but they are all not verifiable. A search did not find any reliable sources about this person that would establish them to be notable per WP:BIO. PROD was contested by creator, so I'm bringing it here. Regards SoWhy 10:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No evidence that he is notable. Looking at the references in the article I find a blogspot post, a linkedin page and other self-promotional sites, a brief entry on a business listings site, a dead link to a deleted message board post, another dead link, a link to a page of the Solicitors' Regulation Authority, a Law Society Gazette listing of moves of its members, buried among which I find "Ariel Zeckler will be a partner in the commercial property department", etc etc. None of what I have seen constitutes significant coverage of Zeckler, much of it is not from reliable sources, and very little of it is independent coverage. In addition I am not convinced that any of the claims in the article are notable enough to justify an article even if they can be substantiated by reliable sources. For example, the section "Chair" tells us only that he is chairman of the fan club of a football club that plays in a very minor league. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable solicitor. It seems his only claims to fame are sending donations to a politician, getting fined by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and, err, having a Wikipedia article. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As above; plenty of material that attempts to corroborate the non-notable bits, but no notability and few reliable sources. Accounting4Taste:talk 13:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lots of footnotes here. But no significant coverage in reliable sources. It is all self-published, trivial or incidental. An encylopaedia can't rely on that. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. As noted above, the charitable work, political lobbying, fines, and rumoured business contracts are of little merit. As far as I can gather, he was chairman of Aylesbury United F.C. only briefly, from around 3 August 2003, and for an undisclosed period of time. In January 2004, it appears that Bill Carroll was acting as chairman, with Graham Read as the new managing director: New Managing Director Appointed. Other articles on the club's website suggest that Read took over from Carroll directly in around 2006, after the latter had failed in his efforts at rejuvenation, and Read has been in control since. That leaves Zeckler with less than six months as chairman, and without mention on the club's own website between 8 August 2003 and 27 January 2004. In short, he might have only been chairman for four whole days... Mephistophelian † 03:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Shimeru (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All-American Basketball Alliance (2010) (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-existent sports league dreamed up as publicity stunt by non-notable wrestling promoter. It's gotten a lot of "Hey, isn't this wacky" attention from the news media (and this week, The Daily Show) because it purports to be an all-white league, and then got an additional round of attention from civil rights groups falling for the publicity stunt, but I will wager thousands of dollars this thing never actually plays a full season. No evidence that there is any financial backing, no evidence that there's anything other than a single guy and his press releases. Even if there were financial backing, the league's all-white policy is illegal, so it's not going to happen. WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:EFFECT, WP:PERSISTENCE: this is simply not encyclopedic. Wikipedia aspires to be more than just the repository of every single thing that had two or more news stories about it. THF (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep The fact that newspapers and civil rights groups (and, apparently, the article's author) did "fall for it" is, in itself, notable. I can forsee that this would get mentioned in books in the future because of the blatant racism of this publicity stunt. A weak keep, because I tend to agree with THF that we shouldn't reward people who strive to get attention (not that a Wikipedia article is much of a reward). The fact remains that he did get attention. Mandsford (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability is not temporary. The absence if sustained coverage in secondary sources suggests that this league will not have lasting notability—note that there are no sources published after January cited. —C.Fred (talk) 14:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Feel free to actually search on your own, and you'll see that there are plenty of sources that have happened past January. Angryapathy (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's pretty simple: this has received a lot of attention in the media across a variety of sources. It's an idiot idea, for sure, but that's not what AfD is about. Does it pass WP:N? Yes, it does, as coverage in multiple sources shows us. Angryapathy (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. God forbid someone looking up a well-publicized subject on Wikipedia should find an informative article about it. Delete with the fire of a thousand suns! Delete! Delete! Pass the torches! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.247.14.8 (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment was meant to be sarcastic, wasn't it? Stonemason89 (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good guess. However, I know 67.247, and when he intends to be sarcastic, he says, "Delete with the fire of 10,000 suns" and he says "Delete! Delete! Delete!". What's really bad is that he's British, and when he refers to torches, he's referring to what American people call "flashlights". Mandsford (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – Seems to be reasonably well-sourced and notable enough for a page. There are a couple articles avaliable on Google News about the Daily Show appearance, indicating at least some continuing press coverage; in addition, there are a few articles from February, including an apparent German-language story. If/when this craziness is prevented from happening, I can easily see someone writing on it, so I'm also not ready to assume there will be no coverage from here on out. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - As Mandsford pointed out, the NAACP and other civil rights groups are taking it seriously. I highly doubt this is just a publicity stunt - if it was, Don Lewis would have shouted "Gotcha!" by now, since it's been over two months since the initial announcement. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Mansford and Stonemason. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 11:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 bd2412 T 01:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Urethra gauge (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)
Notability on this article is unclear. The author is the inventor of this device [58] and has been pushing related subjects with links to his web site. Might be notable, but seems more promotional than anything. No reliable sources are provided to support notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 10:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Notability is not established and as far as I can see (for the author does not communicate with us) the article is here only for the purpose of pushing this invention. I don't have the specialist knowledge to tell me if this is independently notable, and I'd like someone other than the original author to be able to demonstrate that it is, if it is. Otherwise I fear that the encyclopaedia is being used as a promotional tool to drive traffic to the site, and not for strictly encyclopaedic purposes. DBaK (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — Not notable as far as I can tell, and certainly promotional. The name seems to be a trademark.[59] Rees11 (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - promotional, non-notable -- few Google web hits and no GNews hits. FWIW, patent mention here. --CliffC (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - self promoting, external refs don't actually support the product (rather they support the topic of UTI). peterl (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —PDCook (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. I'm not protecting it since the reverts over the redirect were a long time ago and only as few anyway; if it gets repeatedly recreated after this protection may be warranted. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Frank W. Burns (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)
Very temporary fill-in presenter for BBC Sportsnight from over 30 years ago with no sources found to assert any claims to notability Plutonium27 (talk) 01:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. - I tried and failed to find anything that resembles a reliable source. --Darkwind (talk) 05:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is this doing way at the top of the log page? Erpert (let's talk about it) 05:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My fault - first AfD nom and I was half asleep. Plutonium27 (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's a couple of pages of Google hits for "Burns and Mayock" - sorry I don't have time to check them out right now, but someone else might be able to. -- Boing! said Zebedee 09:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Those hits are worthless, mostly Wikipedia reprints of a line from the article Double act, a blog or two. No verifiability. --Bejnar (talk) 13:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I'm not even sure whether Burns exists and I certainly doubt whether he ever presented Sportsnight. More than once, I have deleted his entry and redirected it to the entry for Stafford; it appears that a deliberate troublemaker is consistently recreating the article. I think it should be deleted, and preferably protected from any form of recreation. RobinCarmody (talk) 03:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:BIO# Basic criteria. There is no evidence this person “has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.” As such, it is not possible to write an article which meets the non-negotiable requirements of WP:V and WP:NOR. — Satori Son 12:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 . Marasmusine (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The King of Fighters XIII (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)
It's pretty close to WP:HAMMER material, but it does have a source and a title, so I'd bring it here rather than prod it Shadowjams (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Common sense keep - Technically WP:CRYSTAL says delete, but if the article (and 1UP, Kotaku, and Destructoid) are to be believed it's going to be publicly demoed in Tokyo on Thursday, at which point there'll likely be a glut of gaming press coverage sufficient for it to pass WP:N. Rather than delete today and recreate on Friday, can we say keep for now, and revisit the issue in early April if there aren't sources by then? - DustFormsWords (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, that's the preview not the full release. If there's a glut of press then I'd agree fully, but let's see what we get over the next few days. Shadowjams (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just keep the AfD open for a full week. According to the press release, the official preview event will be held in two days. — Rankiri (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - WP:CRYSTAL no longer violated, though I question whether the rest of the article is up to encyclopedic par.--WaltCip (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Deleting it now would be a meaningless exercise, technicalities or no. Besides, Mai's behind passes WP:NICEONEDAVE easily. Someoneanother 03:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Roger Turner (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)
In my opinion this person is not notable per WP:ARTIST. bender235 (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable free improviser, as can be seen from the copious article references and external links. AllyD (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz notified. AllyD (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Firstly, WP:ARTIST is the wrong guideline, I assume you mean WP:MUSICBIO? Turner clearly has been the subject of "multiple non-trivial published works" – in addition to the sources in the article there's an Allmusic biography and he also has a paragraph in the International Who's Who in Popular Music 2002 (ISBN 1857431618, page 514). That in addition to the multiple reliable sources already in the article should be enough to pass both the WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Jafeluv (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)*[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ben Jacques-Maynes (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 propose this article for deletion in order to make notability criteria for WP:CYCLING. I made a proposal for this, but so far I am the only contributor to that proposal, so there is not even a little bit of consensus on that one. So to make everything clear: I will not "use" my essay on cycling notability to get this article deleted, but I am planning to use the result of this deletion discussion to improve that essay.
The guideline that deals with this article is WP:BIO. Because Jacques-Maynes is known as an athlete only, it is WP:ATHLETE. Jacques-Maynes did never participate in Olympic Games or World Championships, so he fails the second option. The first option is more difficult, because the level system in cycling is blurry.
Ben Jacques-Maynes is in a team since 2002, see here. For those not into cycling: cycling teams are divided into some levels:
- UCI ProTour teams
- UCI Professional Continental teams
- UCI Continental teams
- etc.
The highest level team that he rode on is his current team, which is a UCI Continental Team, the third level. Teams at this level can be professional, semi-amateur or amateur, so it is not a fully professional level. Jacques-Maynes may be a professional cyclist (I have no proof for this, but I assume he is), but that is irrelevant.
Races are also divided into levels: ProTour, HC, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. There is also a level "NE", which means "National Event", which is outside this ranking. [60] Jacques-Maynes won some stages in the last year, but all of them were in the UCI categorisation "NE". In Cycling, the highest level teams are the UCI ProTeams, and they are not even allowed to enter "National Events", so these are certainly not the highest level. The highest level race category that Jacques-Maynes entered was the HC category, for example the 2009 Tour of Missouri. He was able to do this, because HC level races are allowed to invite local UCI Continental teams to their race.
Jacques-Maynes never rode in a team that competes on a fully professional level. (That would have to be UCI ProTour or UCI Professional Continental.) Jacques-Maynes did ride in some races that were fully professional, but his team needed a special invitation for that, so this is irrelevant.
From this I conclude that Jacques-Maynes did not compete on a fully professional level, so is not notable. Thank you for your attention. EdgeNavidad (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From what I have seen of the American Cyclists category, this would def. not be one to be deleted. B. J.-M. is one of the more prominent cyclists on that list, so either delete many other American names there first, or leave this one up. My two cents... Jack B108 (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand what you say, but it is irrelevant according to the wikipedia guidelines. This AfD is only about B. J.-M., and it is irrelevant how many other cyclists' articles exist. And he may be or not be prominent (he is ranked 91st American male road cyclist according to cyclingranking for example, while the Category:American cyclists contains 295 cyclists including female and BMX), but to be notable as an athlete he should be competing on a fully professional level, which I think he is not. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He is notable for three separate reasons:
- 1) He has won some Elite level professional races
- 2) He is a elite category professional cyclist
- 3) He is a member of a UCI registered cycling team.
- I vote keep
Racklever (talk) 11:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- ad 1: The races he won are on the third level at most, so I would not call that "Elite level". Secondly: the races that he won were in a class that is in principle open to amateur teams, so they are not fully professional.
- ad 2: Again, "Elite category" is wrong. He is not in a "UCI proteam", neither in a "UCI professional continental team", but in a "UCI continental team". Note the absence of the word "professional".
- ad 3: Being registered at the UCI does not make a team notable, let alone a cyclist. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 16:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- He won the first major pro race of the U.S. season, a three-stage event, the 2010 Merco CU Cycling Classic. So this article shouldn`t be deleted (I don`t think it should right now, but I understand why the proposal was made). IMHO.... Jack B108 (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. As I understand it, the pro/amateur distinction is very difficult in cycling because some low-level teams are professional and compete in high-level races. This guy has received significant coverage in reliable sources and has won major races. Forget the technicalities of WP:ATH; he is notable. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This guy did not win races on a fully professional level. The definition of a 'major race' may vary from person to person (I would not call the races J-M won major), so that is not a good criterium, that is why wikipedia uses the fully professional definition.
- You point that he has received significant coverage may be more to the point, although I am not sure if it is really significant.
- My current position is that I think that J-M is not notable because of of WP:ATH because he did not compete on a fully professional level, but there is a chance he still is notable because he received significant coverage in reliable sources. I don't know if this is the right place to ask this, but what do other people think of this? (The goal of this AfD is not primarily to get this article deleted, but to make a guideline for cyclist's biography notability). --EdgeNavidad (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Matt Traverso (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)
Insufficient WP:RS to indicate notability. The External links here are predominately primary sources, although some of them are ambigious. Not finding a lot of mainstream reliable sources though. Shadowjams (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made changes to the article. Is it ok now or not? --Mtx1 (talk) 09:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. He appears to share a name with a former Stanford tight end, though as his picture shows, it's clearly not the same guy. I can't find significant independent coverage of this motivational speaker, although I do notice that the #1 Google autocomplete option when you type in "Matt Traverso" is "matt traverso scam." He appears to fail WP:BIO. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I can find no information other than seemingly self-published info about the subject. From my research, he fails WP:BIO. OlYellerTalktome 21:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 15:06, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Amotherby & Swinton F.C. (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)
Amateur village football club which has never played above the (highly theoretical) 15th level of the English football league system. Normal yardstick of notability at WP:FOOTY for a team is past or present participation in the top 10 levels or in a national cup competition, this team has donew neither. Article creator was actually happy for it to be deleted, but before he had a chance to tag it g7, someone else edited it so that was no longer valid. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Not even close to being notable in a footballing sense as they don't compete in the national cup competition (in this case the FA Cup). -- BigDom 08:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I think a prod would have worked. Mr Stephen (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a bit jaded on PRODs, as whenever I put them on an IP just pops up and removes them with no explanation and I wind up having to take the article to AfD anyway....... :-( -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Been there, done that. :) Mr Stephen (talk) 10:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Passes neither Wp:FOOTYN nor Wp:GNG. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 18:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into York League as me and Chris discussed earlier on my talk page, I created this article and I think it's appropriate to have it as a section in the league it's in. Even if Footyn notability policies changed, I think all leagues in the English Football Pyramid would always be notable, and there's enough space for the team in that article unless the team someday becomes notable on its own. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's OK with me as long as all teams in the league are afforded equivalent coverage in the article, otherwise you're giving undue weight to this one..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies, transposed "section" with "row on a graph". Serves me right for late night editing. Doc Quintana (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's OK with me as long as all teams in the league are afforded equivalent coverage in the article, otherwise you're giving undue weight to this one..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Table mouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Appears to be WP:MADEUP. No evidence that this is not a game played by any number of drunken or bored students since time immemorial, of no notability whatsoever. Speedy and PROD have been disputed, but this article has no place in Wikipedia. PamD (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I should have gone with my initial suspicion- I was convinced by the creator that it was an actual game, but clearly this is not the case. Delete per WP:MADEUP and WP:GULLIBLE. ALI nom nom 13:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There is no evidence that this game has been played, or that it is known besides the people who invented it.-- Barkjon 16:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete From my PROD: " WP:MADEUP Yet another of those made-up school or student games with no chance of notability." The article even states: "created by two students of the University of Louisville." Peridon (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A7 Tone 15:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dorcon Productions (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 group of people. Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 07:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Borderline A7, in that the limited claim of importance doesn't remotely approach our notability standards. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete A7; shouldn't be here. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 A7.
- Sikelianos & sikelianos (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 band. Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 05:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Non-notable. Could not find any sources for this band besides the unreputable Facebook and other social-networking sites. Goodvac (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as G11 (blatant advertising) and G12 (copyright violation). – Toon 15:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Titan Software Inc (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 software company. Andewz111 (no 'r') (PingusTM) - Linux rulez! (nudge me) 05:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CopyVio http://www.myspace.com/pxixtreme Ronhjones (Talk) 22:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Pxixtreme (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:BAND Closeapple (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Closeapple (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Caribbean-related deletions and Illinois-related deletions.
—Closeapple (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or speedy per my own nomination. Possibly WP:CSD#A7 — I only used AfD instead of speedy because the article claims "The Queen is known all over the world from her writing and performance of “Spend the Night” on the Scarface album MY BALLS, MY WORD." Only alleged "release" was Unexpected, allegedly on Divercity Records, but the record company itself claims it hasn't launched yet: "brand new dance music label that will be featuring amazing tunes and very talented artists" according to its own website. In any case, no release on any major label, and no other concrete claim of notability. --Closeapple (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete. Should have had the db-band tag added. Woogee (talk) 05:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sppedy delete, it's been around for too long now, as I was about to propose a deletion of it because it could be a hoax. But the copyright infringements discovered from a spammy source leaves me no choice but to go for the speedy deletion. It doesn't even have any references, which fails the notability guideline for bands. Apart from the style of editing, it contains nearly all issues that compromise the integrity. Minimac (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 15:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- BElls (musical instrument) (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)
Musical instrument. References are of the primary type, insufficient to establish notability. No references on Google News. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 01:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, appears to be advertising for one company's product. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please Keep, This is a work in progress. I am trying to create a valid entry for this instrument. There is little information on the web yet other than the manufactures website, several youtube videos of the instrument being played and numerous discussions on several forums. The nearest related instruments are the Halo and Hang. There is no wiki article on the Halo and I have specifically been asked by the BElls manufacturer to not reference the Hang. 80.238.1.134 (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:AKON. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, in the unlikely eventuality that the article will be kept, if consensus decides that Hang is mentioned in the article, then BEllArt does not have a say. See WP:OWN. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and Redirect to Hang (musical instrument) - What is the difference between the BElls (a brand name) and the Hang (musical instrument), has it become a generic name? Hang is a brand name aparently belonging to PanArt. YouTube of a Hang It appears to me that the Halo is another brand for a hang drum. Here is a Halo being played YouTube of a Steel Halo It does not look much different from a BElls or any other hang drum. There are other variants of the Hang out there. For example, the HAPI Drum (brand name) is a Hank drum (generic) which is very similar to a hang. HAPI Drum YouTube. The Zen Tambour (brand name) is also a hank drum or a steel tongue drum. YouTube of a Zen Tambour It seems to me like the BEllArt company would love a branded page to promote their hang drum, but there is no evidence that the BElls brand is notable enough to stand on its own. kgrr talk 15:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - a Caisa (musical instrument) seems to be another branded name for the same kind of musical instrument. kgrr talk 16:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Is a musical instrument, therefore should be notable Dew Kane (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was closed as keep per WP:SPEEDYKEEP, nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes, NAC. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Latino Youth Alternative High 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)
An article with this name created by the same creator (Kausticgirl, who has deleted the previous deletion notices from her talk page) was deleted as a copyright infringement. I tried to access the page from which the deleted text was copied ([61]) but it was unavailable. Would an admin check to see if the page text is the same as before? NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 04:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Morenooso (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. —Morenooso (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Schools are usually considered notable in and of themselves. This one has a 34 year history and gets ghits. --Morenooso (talk) 04:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I nominated this not for non-notability, but because a previous version by the same creator was deleted as a copyright infringement. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 04:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Fair enough. I've notified Jclemens, who speedy-deleted the prior version, about this discussion.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As this article has been extensively changed, I would like to withdraw this nomination. Is that allowed? NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 06:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I believe you can withdraw it. Place a {{helpme}} tag on your talkpage and someone should be along to help. --Morenooso (talk) 06:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Topic has been discussed in (and has even been the main topic of) multiple secondary sources. It even has Google Scholar hits. Abductive (reasoning) 07:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - I didn't see any copyvio issues with this version, so I assume they have been dealt with. Deletion nomination has been withdrawn so speedy keep is in order. PDCook (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Swami Sivananda Radha (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 Heavy COI when i first saw it come through New Pages, IP also edits pages from the area where this woman's Enclave is. Google Scholar Pulls up her own works Checked Melton Lewis nothing. Tagged with multiple issues, one month passed no improvement added PROD. Kyle1278 removed PROD recommended formal AFD. Weaponbb7 (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose/wait As noted on User talk:Kyle1278 I happen to know the subject is the founder of a notable religious sect, Emissaries of the Divine Light; I agree COI sources are a problem but that's true of LOTS of religion-related pages (ditto political party and political bio pages). More citations are needed, and a purging of the article's COI/advert content, but she's definitely notable.....note teh article, just linked, on her teacher Swami Sivananda.Skookum1 (talk) 16:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment related links re the Emissaries their website, news item about a hotel owned by one of its members, other googles for the Emissaries. I haven't read through these pages yet to see if she's mentioned; I know about her relationship with them by a visit to their ashram/campus/convention centre on Kootenay Lake in the summer of 2007.Skookum1 (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- issue here is i dont see her name in any of those, Whether or not her movement is notable or not if there are sufficient RS for an article on her movement we can incorporate there . we have several articles that limit it to just the movement and the founders without a fork. Not being in Melton and Lewis's books is usually a good threshold for notability of an individual in the New religious movement field. It seems you argument is too is she is notable because she is a disciple of a notable individual? My mentor is Nicholas Honerkamp but that does not mean i am notable if i go Start A Cultural resources management firm that gets in the paper?
Weaponbb7 (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't understand what is requested for notability. She has studied with Swami Sivananda from Rishikesh, she is one of the first women Swami to come to Canada. She started an ashram and wrote about 10 books, she appeared on some tv show and was teaching about yoga and the mind during her time. As I realized there is not much trace of her on the internet - and by the way the emissaries of the Divine light is not affiliated with her at all. What type of content is needed to prove her notability ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.70.105 (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: IP 207.194.70.105 is under investigation on COI notice Board
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 03:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Why keep unsourced artciles that are in effect are just ads. Wikidas© 18:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer to IP (COI notice Board) -- If a biography of her was published by a reputable publisher, if her books were reviewed by some reputable journal or if she was the subject (not mentioned in passing) of a number of good articles, excluding articles by the followers, that would make her notable. At the moment she is not. Wikidas© 18:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Traderwars (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 haven't been able to find significant coverage of this game in reliable, third-party sources to meet the general notability guideline. There was a bit of information about a game called "Space Trader Wars" but nothing about a mix between stocks and poker. ThemFromSpace 03:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Trade Wars is a notable computer game. This isn't that. In its current state, fails V and I don't see any sources in a Google search that explicitly apply to this game. It's possible it's simply NN, it's also possibly a hoax. Jclemens (talk) 16:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going to mention Trade Wars too. Delete this and consider redirecting there afterwards. —Korath (Talk) 16:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm not finding any RSes for this game. Hobit (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Lacks coverage in WP:RS sources. Even the game's official website is no longer with us. — Rankiri (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Brigham Young University faculty (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)
Hi! I am a new user, and I am not sure that I am doing this totally correctly, so apologizes if this is incorrect. I was recently cleaning up the Brigham Young University article, and found this link. If I looked at this correctly, it seems outdated and does not seem to be commonly edited. I simple list of faculty at a university, whether complete or incomplete, does not seem to be appropriate content for an Encyclopedia. At best, this link is a highlight of a few randomly selected professors, or else a long list that would be more appropriately linked to on the institutions website. 2beornot57 (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose If you're a new user, perhaps you should consult a more experienced editor before nominating articles for deletion and "cleaning up". Trust me, it will save you some time in the long run. While this list needs work, it is hardly worthy of deletion on any grounds as it contains sources, covers an area of interest, and does not unnecessarily duplicate another list. Lists like these are common for universities to show notable faculty members both past and present, though some include them with their notable alumni in a "List of Generic University people" article where there are fewer names on both alumni and faculty. They are hardly "randomly selected" any more than a notable alumni list is "randomly selected" alumni. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Assume good faith, please. Nobody is required to consult someone before nominating an article, nor otherwise get permission. Regarding editors, I'd observe that more experience is proportional to more reliability, but not more intelligence. Mandsford (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Nothing bad faith about what I said. Bad faith would assume he's doing it purely to cause trouble something I never implied. I was referring to his "I'm not sure I'm doing this correctly" and other unsureties about the process and even if the list is appropriate. If you're going to nominate an article for deletion you should be pretty sure about why and be able to cite specific policies and guidelines the article violates. Never did I say he needed permission from another editor or that he is required to do so; I'm only saying if you're not sure, ask those who know the policies before nominating an article for deletion (or any big change for that matter). It saves a lot of time and is part of working together and learning as an editor. In this case, deleting an article is purely a policy issue; it should either be here or it shouldn't, so more experienced editors will probably be familiar with the various policies and the whole deletion debate process. The BYU articles have their own Wikiproject and a team of editors who are very familiar with the various policies and guidelines here who I have found are more than happy to answer questions and work with other editors. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Assume good faith, please. Nobody is required to consult someone before nominating an article, nor otherwise get permission. Regarding editors, I'd observe that more experience is proportional to more reliability, but not more intelligence. Mandsford (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Okay, thanks for letting me know. When I said "cleaning up," what I meant was correcting some facts that I knew to be inaccurate, semi-accurate, or correcting grammar. However, if I did mess anything up please let me know. Thanks. --2beornot57 (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Highly notable university. The list is encyclopedic and easily managed. The list very much belongs here, and the nominator has given no reason to delete.User:JonRidinger makes good points in his "oppose". Dlohcierekim 03:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What Mandsford said. ;) Dlohcierekim 13:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I don't see a real basis for deletion, other than that this might open the door to similar "List of ____ faculty" articles. However, it's more detailed than "a simple list", and it isn't a group of "randomly selected professors". Basically, this is a list of notable (i.e. they have their own article on Wikipedia) BYU professors and, more importantly, a description of why they are notable. If it were nothing more than a list of blue links, then it would qualify as the classic indiscriminate list, but it has sufficient discriminating information. Mandsford (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it were a list of blue links alone, that would not make it indiscriminate; a list limited to those people who have WP articles is by its very nature discriminating, because our coverage is limited to those who are notable. A list of all of their faculty, that is what would be indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We disagree on the definition of "indiscriminate", which is subject to many different interpretations. However, we agree that this is not an indiscriminate list. Wikipedia's standards have gradually increased, and I think that the author recognized that slapping together a lazy list of blue links doesn't work anymore. Mandsford (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if it were a list of blue links alone, that would not make it indiscriminate; a list limited to those people who have WP articles is by its very nature discriminating, because our coverage is limited to those who are notable. A list of all of their faculty, that is what would be indiscriminate. DGG ( talk ) 02:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- keep per above comments. I would encourage the nominator to utilize WP:BYU or the list's talk page to propose improvements on the list be done. —Eustress talk 14:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep, but I'd be more comfortable if this was clearly a list of the Notable members of the faculty. As written, and as titled, this list purports to be a list of the faculty - and, by that logic, the School of Nursing has no faculty members. I have no objection to a blue-linked list of those faculty members notable enough for articles, but we should be clear that that is what we're listing. Props to the nominator for highlighting these issues. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have inserted the missing word in the first sentence of the article. (we normally omit it from titles, because notable is understood of anything in WP). DGG ( talk ) 18:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was G10 The article is unsourced, alleges that an author was a failure. Removing that content leaves an unreasonably short (A1) article, hence it goes. No prejudice against recreating a sourced and non-negative article, which can then be assessed upon its merits. Jclemens (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Livin' Like It's 1987 (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. Reason was that this book does not assert notability. In fact, with the claim that it didn't sell well, it pretty much explicitly disclaims notability. The WordsmithCommunicate 02:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, I can't find proof that this book even exists; my searching certainly hasn't turned up anything that could possibly support notability. Glenfarclas (talk) 03:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is an example of "damning with faint praise". The sentence "The book did not sell well at all and today is off the market. Scott Walsh himself bought all of the remaining copies" pretty well sums up the reasons why this is not notable. To Scott Walsh, I salute you for going after the dream, that most of us have, of publishing a book. Mandsford (talk) 13:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ishmael (novel). Scott Mac (Doc) 15:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- New Tribal Revolution (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 Came Across as a OR from the start, i can't find any sources anywhere... Weaponbb7 (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with Ishmael (novel), whose article is also too unsourced for my liking. this movement, while laudable (i may in fact be one of them), doesnt warrant an article if it cant find references other than the book and daniel quinns ideas. its essentially promotional. all the promotion this needs here is a link to daniel quinns website from the books by him, and his bio. this is similar to the problem of excess details of fictional worlds, where the only source is the work itself. what is this movements impact in the REAL world? if and when it becomes more notable, it can have its own article, but not now. oh, and for those who want this material here: if you are truly new tribalists, you wont be obsessed with trying to objectively define the movement in an encyclopedia (an invention of taker civilization, not a true expression of tribal culture. SNAP!)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect. I don't see the need for a separate article - the term is mentioned in few (but only a few) sources: [62]. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Frances McGuigan (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 references, no real world info, not even the portrayer's name. Only thing I found is [63].I can't confirm that the plot is accurate. Magioladitis (talk) 01:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Fair City. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Kavanagh for a similar discussion that concluded to deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 19:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as insufficiently notable per the WP:GNG. A very minor fictional character with no coverage by reliable sources. Not even included at List of Fair City characters. — Satori Son 15:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ColdHeat. Tone 15:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Athalite (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 non-notable material, bordering on advertising for the ColdHeat product/company. Wizard191 (talk) 16:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to ColdHeat, the company that manufactured this (and perhaps still does). The company's press releases barely made a splash [64] a few years ago, with about four mentions in Google news. It doesn't appear that it was ever notable, and certainly not notable outside of the context of the ColdHeat company. Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 14:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I'm ok with up-merging this article. Wizard191 (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as suggested above, per WP:PRODUCT: "Information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy." Here, ColdHeat isn't particularly long, so a merge makes the most sense. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Creative Control (music company) (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 as a non-notable company. The company is not listed in either Hoover's or Dun & Bradstreet. There is no coverage in secondary sources. The claimed notability is from work done by the partners at Lionsgate, and even then credit appears to be claimed for more than their work. There is no basis for notability. Bejnar (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 15:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- All Hallows Eve (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)
Non-notable demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lack of coverage, demo albums are almost inherently NN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Has zero notability, and the same can be said for most demo CDs. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Skankin' Pickle (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)
Non-notable demo album. WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete lack of coverage, demo albums are almost inherently NN. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No evidence this demo tape has received "significant independent coverage in reliable sources." — Satori Son 15:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 15:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- DKFXP (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:BAND. nothing in gnews. LibStar (talk) 01:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:
- 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."
Both Kushner and Perez are notable musicians, with Kushner being in Velvet Revolver, Wasted Youth and Dave Navarro's solo band among others, while Perez is a solo artist and currently the (live) guitarist for Scars on Broadway with members of System of a Down. The reason why DKFXP cant be found on Google Archives is because its a kind of a pseudonym given for the release of the songs. The collaberation between the 2 has been mentioned on Blabbermouth link "Dave is currently working on a new music project with singer/songwriter Franky Perez." and Classic Rock link "4. Franky has been working on tracks with Velvet Revolver guitarist Dave Kushner. 6. Frankie abbreviates his name to FXP.". HrZ (talk) 02:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - I concur with the rule cited by HrZ above, as there are many notable people in this band. However, at this point it might be too early for an article because the band has not yet done much of note. Until that happens, and if the result of this discussion is to delete, the existence of this project can be noted in the pages for the associated bands and individuals. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Well it seems to me that despite the guideline that imputes pure transferred notability, that an ensemble ought to have some claim to notability on its own. --Bejnar (talk) 13:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedied as G10 (attack page); Calling a page that doesn't so much as list a birthdate or give some indication of the subject's history a "biography" was at best a joke in poor taste; when it consists of nothing but a collection of unflattering anecdotes it's character assassination. — Coren (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Inge Lynn Collins Bongo (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)
Subject has requested to opt-out of the encyclopedia. I am currently neutral; that could change as I research further. NW (Talk) 00:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep She appears quite notable, but the article suffers from too many primary source citations without corresponding secondary sources. --Bejnar (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to the secondary coverage of Inge Bongo sparked by the 4 Feb. 2010 Senate report. Secondary coverage includes:
- her appearance on the television real estate shopping program: Peta, Basildon (6 September 2009) "Chance to right things goes begging in Gabon" The Sunday Independent (South Africa) page 10; Rice, Xan (5 May 2008) "International: Gabon: Papa Bongos 40 years in power: Record-breaking rule thanks to oil cash but cronysim and corruption taint future" The Guardian page 15; and McFerson, Hazel M. (2009)"Governance and Hyper-corruption in Resource-rich African Countries" Third World Quarterly 30(8): pp.1529–1547 doi:10.1080/01436590903279257
- her estrangement from Ali Ben Bongo and voodoo: Staff (30 August 2009) "'First Lady' in California Exile" The New York Post page 14
- Evidence of her actual marriage to Ali Ben Bongo at a private ceremony in Spain seems to be paltry at best. --Bejnar (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Warning editor Ingebongo has removed most of the article, you may wish to look at the fuller older version when making your analysis.--Bejnar (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aengw has restored the original article. --Bejnar (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:BLP of marginal notability (stitched together from news stories, some of them tabloid); subject expresses a clear preference for deletion. Guy (Help!) 20:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is not a biography; it is a cobble-job of a bunch of unconnected events that do nothing but paint the marginally-notable subject of the article in a bad light. I have reservations about relying on the Subcommittee report as it is a primary source - there are no secondary sources cited for the money-laundering stuff. Not at all comfortable with the retention of this article. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Article has been trimmed back from the poor situation it was in but under the circumstances of semi notable, poorly cited with no coverage and request from the subject, I support deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No comprehensive sources available to write an in depth npov account of her life up to now. Hobbling together bits and pieces can not give a well balanced entry so delete. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Regardless of the views of the subject, there is no indication that this article can be developed into anything more than a couple of poorly-sourced gossip items. If necessary, a proper article can be created if the subject is ever featured in a secondary source as notable. Johnuniq (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete—subject is of marginal at best notability, the article consists of a list of peripheral negative incidents involving the subject and is not either comprehensive or netural, and the subject herself requests deletion. –Grondemar 22:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Warning User:JzG re-censored the article on April 4 immediately before all of the above delete votes were cast. This deletion,[65] complete with a warning against re-adding content, is based on the assertion that a majority and minority staff report from the Permanent Committee on Investigations of the United States Senate is an unreliable primary source that cannot be used in a Wikipedia biography. Please consult the older version.[66] Wnt (talk) 03:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 03:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Roozz (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 a likely subject of paid editing coming from this post on freelancer dot com (the page is nonpublic but anyone can create an account for free to view it).
The page reads "I am currently looking for an experienced wikipedia writer. This writer must have knowledge in composing page(s) to the wikipedia requirements and He or She must have a current Wiki user account. The hired Freelance person should be able to hold an account with Wiki-to make changes to his or her created Wiki document. This job is to create a Wiki page for the Roozz technology. I will provide writer/editor a draft, but the hired freelancer will be responsible for it's accuracy, acceptable upon the wikipedia's site guidelines-with a guarantee of no deletions within a reasonable (negotiable) time. Part of the job will be to create / find notable references for the article. In your bid remember references to Wiki articles you have written / edited and your wiki account name."
This page should be deleted as paid editing spam and as an abuse of a volunteer-run encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not to be used as a vehicle for promotion. ThemFromSpace 20:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the only reference in the article is a press release. My own searches find press releases but no coverage in reliable sources. Press releases don't establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while it currently has only 1 ref it appears others are available and it does, IMO, just pass our notability guidelines (non-BLP). I will try to work on improving it over the next few days. Delete due to freelancer issues and the speedy deletion on Feb 18 on an article whose notability was always going to be marginal.I am neutral on this one tbh. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 14:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Reply - That one reference is a press release. Currently there is no independent coverage listed in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the freelancer comments I am removing my objection. Thanks, SqueakBox talk contribs 15:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply - That one reference is a press release. Currently there is no independent coverage listed in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete notability not established by article, quick google search shows the usual free pages, weblogs, etc. no reliable sources to indicate this has any notability. the paid editing issues dont help the article in the slightest, to put it mildly.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No decent news sources in google. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Shimeru (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jake Bernstein (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 market trader and self publicist. Insufficient citations in WP:RS to satisfy notability. Prod removed without explanation by IP. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep by sheer volume of publication, I guess he is a keeper.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- a neighborly Response to TonyTheTiger
- Whenever I guess, I often guess wrong, so I'd rather not mimic your guess he's a keeper this time.
- The sheer volume of publication offers no supporting argument in favor of Wikipedia notability:
- An argument popular at AfD proceedings is "She has X number of Y, which proves that she's notable" (or not).
- We may establish notability not by the quantity of one's published work, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources. An article on a topic is more likely to pass the notability test with a single article in Encyclopedia Britannica than with 1 million views on YouTube.
- For more information, please see I Like It! : Arbitrary Quantity.
- I would encourage you to reverse your recommendation — if only to a Luke-Warm Delete — unless you can accomplish what not one of the rest of us has been able to do in two years of trying in good faith:
- to demonstrate Notability by revealing to all of us reliable, independent, credible, established, mainstream news sources that have produced any substantial, comprehensive coverage of this subject.
- ____________________________________________
- .
- Strong Keep I'm a student of Jake Bernstein, I made the original entry and have occassionally appended it. Jake's work is objective and helpful. The entry should remain, without bias, as a simple identification of a very prolific author who is also a helpful teacher. Biased content added by the misinformed who do not know Jake or his work first hand should be removed as well as references to slanderous competitors sites. The entry should remain as a simple identification and bibliography of a prolific author. --Thor1964 (T/Special:Contributions/Thor1964/User:Thor1964/WP:Santa Cruz, CA) 12:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- a congenial Response to Thor1964
- As I've said before, my first obligation is to presume your good faith, and I hereby renew that presumption in your favor once more.
- I understand and I respect your loyalty to your subject, Thor, and I urge you to amend — and defend — your case for a Jake Bernstein article, but only if you can ingenuously establish his notability from substantial, extant, reputable, mainstream, secondary coverage of him by sources that do not "know Jake or his work first hand," in accord with the Wikipedia policy on Notability and acceptable Sources, in advance of a reincarnation of your article.
- .
- I myself have not, cannot, and I've failed to find even one objective person who can.
- Nonetheless, I remain receptive to anyone anywhere who can do the deed honestly.
- You weaken your case (when none of us should have a "case" or any agenda at all)
- if you choose to neglect the only important issue here (Notability), in favor of
- such expressions of a personal point of view that our guidelines for this very discussion exclude:
- "I'm a student of Jake Bernstein" + Jake's "a helpful teacher" = Wikipedia: I Like Him + Wikipedia:He's Helpful
- .
- "I'm a student of Jake Bernstein" + Jake's "a helpful teacher" = Wikipedia: I Like Him + Wikipedia:He's Helpful
- Please let me encourage you to cite genuine evidence of Notability if you can — or perhaps, if you find yourself agreeing that no significant, substantial, independent, secondary, reputable coverage of Jake is out there anywhere, friend, to reverse your recommendation gently to a Regretful and Reluctant Delete — since your argument here, as it stands, may carry no weight in this nomination for deletion, in view of what we find in Notability is Not a Matter of Opinion. Your statement here
- is not supported by any policies, guidelines or precedents;
- does not represent a neutral point of view;
- and seems to suggest you've not had much luck finding any legitimate sources of independent coverage of Jake for your article, which is a clear sign that your charismatic teacher does not meet the notability criterion.
- Instead of establishing notability, your arguments and your actions upon the Article as well as its Talk page serve to suggest that you may be feeling some frustration at the impossibility of resolving the troublesome issues of Jake as a suitable subject here, while you may have inadvertently been demonstrating the dearth of legitimate coverage, and his consequent inadmissibility in the face of Wikipedia's tests for notability;
- Some of the properties of your statement are specifically listed as those to avoid in deletion discussions like this one, and it does more harm to your cause than any good.
- None of us should feel committed to any cause, as such — don't you think? — except to the integrity of our encyclopedia.
- Let me know if I can help you.
- ____________________________________________
- .
I expect that it will just get deleted again-- this is the part that is always deleted by anonymous IP address editors every time it shows up in the article-- but given that the article is on the deletion discussion list, I put back into the article the material that has been repeatedly deleted, including the article in Forbes and the circuit court opinion:
- William Green, "There's one born every minute," Forbes, March 9, 1999 (article at Forbes.com)
- MBH Commodity Advisors, Inc. and Jacob Bernstein, Petitioners, v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, Respondent. In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit - 250 F.3d 1052 (7th Cir. 2001) Decision (decision also available from caselaw)
Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Acccording to the wikipeda history of Geoffrey.landis edits, he regularly vandalizes other peoples wikipedia entries, propogates and participates in edit warring, and has been formaly punished by wikipedia in the past by being banned from making entries for a significant time period. Geoffrey.landis has proven to be an exceptionally arrogant and highly biased individual who thinks he knows everything about every subject, and should be premanetly banned from any making wikipedia entries and/or edits due to his uncivilized anti-social behavior therein. As an example, his election for deletion of other more notable and more widely published successful authors entries in wikipedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.153.184 (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2010
- Please do not make personal attacks on other editors. Please adhere to the civility policy, assume good faith and observe wiki etiquette. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your vote of confidence, User: 76.200.153.184. Just as a comment, I notice that 76.200.153.184 has made no edits to any articles other than Jake Bernstein-- and my user page. I'll also note that Thor1964 has made no edits to any articles other than approximately 60 edits to Jake Bernstein. In fact there are a lot of anonymous editors who have done nothing except add promotional material to Jake Bernstein-- 76.247.107.66 and 99.163.50.178 and 76.254.84.164 for example, to pick just three of many. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but the first step after keeping will be for someone unconnected to rewrite the article. Absurd promotionalism is not to be balanced by one-sided reports of adverse litigation, but by a fair treatment of the person. He's notable as an author because of the multiple books by major business publishers. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's a paragraph in the Criticism section that appears to be a copyright violation, see [67] for the source text. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See also materials from [68]. Looks like most of this is copied from his many self promotional web sites. --Nuujinn (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nomination withdrawn. Concerns have been addressed. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tinygrab (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. Software with no assertion of notability. Delete. Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Has been edited... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abor003 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Software established notability with third party references, Macworld Magazine, CrunchBase profile, and MacHeist --Dan LeveilleTALK 01:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 15:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aaron Parry (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)
Helping out an IP that's trying to do this nomination. I have no opinion, but the's bio's notability seems ripe for discussion. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. SilverserenC 01:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. I have also added some links. SilverserenC 01:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Expand. I see there are quite a few google hits for his name, if the article would be expanded, there would be no grounds to for speedy deletion. רח"ק | Talk | Contribs 05:43, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But the size of an article is not grounds for speedy deletion anyways. SilverserenC 23:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment well, the books may be notable if the author isn't. --Bejnar (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep Two books published by known publisher. Culturalrevival (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I have expanded it a little, and added references (mostly by the simple expedient of converting the external links to references) and deleted the unreferenced tag. I think he probably makes it as notable. --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and expand. He is a noted author and has done other notable things. Yoninah (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Recent updates have improved this article. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Incubate. Moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Overdrive (band) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overdrive (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)
Band does not meet notability standards. No charted songs, no notable albums. References are all either from the EXIT Festival, or other sites' simple listings of EXIT Festival acts. No other independent coverage that I can find, at least not in English. Very difficult to verify anything presented. (Declined speedy.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate to encourage research, then delete if notability can't be established in a reasonable period of time. Given that there are probably non-English sources that could establish this band's notability I am hesitant to delete it in a process that lasts only a week or maybe two and which isn't designed to rescue articles. It needs more time and attention from local or subject-matter experts. Criteria of Wikipedia:Notability_(music) that this band might meet but which aren't in or aren't clearly in the article include 1/non-trivial coverage, 4/tour, 5/major+major-indie label, 11/rotation, and possibly others. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:33, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 19:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Overdrive (band) per Davidwr. If, after a reasonable amount of time, there is no improvement to the article, then delete. Cunard (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Incubate per above, may have potential if thrown out to where someone can dig up any possible Serbian sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Barzudi (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)
Claims of notability cannot be verified. No searches turn up any results for this name. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This article is about a local leader who played key role in reestablishment of the peace and mutual consent between opposition the government and radical movements in Tajikistan. Latin alphabet searches may miss relevant sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Searches for the most likely Cyrillic spelling come up blank: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, but I doubt that Tajik newspaper articles from the 1990s are available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fail WP:V as no sources have been identified. Tassedethe (talk) 16:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- TeamBglobal (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 about a non-notable sponsored cycle racing team. This search yields only 10 google hits, all of them totally irrelevant for establishing notability. Fails WP:N. andy (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I also failed to find any significant coverage in reliable sources for this cycling team. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, non-notable "amateur racers who want to make their mark in cycling." I can't find any significant coverage of this team. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Rock'N the Rally (Live at the Sturgis) (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)
WP:CRYSTAL. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The article itself says Although it was said that shooting the new Godsmack DVD at Sturgis is a perfect way to celebrate the band's 10th Anniversary, little has been heard about it since. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Jujutacular T · C 00:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 15:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Michael Koby (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)
Junior associate of Derek Alfonso and The Power of Information (deleted 25 Jan). Fails WP:N. No independent WP:RS found. Vanity page. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 23:38, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oscar Wrigley (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 notability except for "as a toddler he joined Mensa". No continuing notability. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beatrix Townsend & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elise Tan Roberts — 71.166.147.78 (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete due to the fact that Elise Tan Roberts was actually "youngest ever" by a month or so … Happy Editing! — 71.166.147.78 (talk · contribs) 00:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, just a toddler who got a little news coverage as a human-interest story. Pure WP:ONEEVENT material that might merit a mention in the article on Mensa International, but not a standalone article on the child himself. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – I agree with Glenfarclas. He's just a kid who is known only for one thing (which isn't a very encyclopedic thing to begin with), and no indication of notability in the future. American Eagle (talk) 04:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 15:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Scapegoat 666 (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)
Demo albums are non-notable per WP:MUSIC —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - I agree. Marokwitz (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OpenBVE Network West Midlands routes map (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, fictional rail network and only reference is to a map on the project website. ZoeL (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case delete. I saw this one when I was doing new page patrol but I didn't look at it too closely, as most railway layout maps are legit. I mean, they are bloody difficult to do and who would waste their time making a fake one? So I thought it must be a map of some real, historical or genuinely proposed rail network that somebody had mistakenly put in the article space rather than made as a template. I assumed that some contextual information would be forthcoming. If it is just some fictional stuff then it has to go. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As stated in nomination. ZoeL (talk) 04:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 15:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- American Vice (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:CORP and WP:WEB. Article started by person associated with the company. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. EuroPride (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. No indication of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 14:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Coma (Romanian 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)
As far as I can tell, this is another MySpace band. Sugar Bear (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Unsigned band for which I can't find any coverage or other indications of encyclopedic notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Scott Mac (Doc) 15:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Non Lasciarmi Mai (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. No assertion of notability and fails WP:NSONGS Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you wanting to delete everything I am creating? This article forms part of a larger discography. I am trying to find additional info, but its not helped that most info is in Italian- a language I do not understand. However, seen as though Alexia's other physical releases are on here, so should this one. I cant help it that this was released in one territory unlike Alexia's previous releases. Aquaplex (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.The article is about an album of well know singer in Italy so I think that the notability is satisfied.User:Lucifero4
- This is an article about a single not an album. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeff Widmer (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 writer. Fails WP:GNG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I have two books to my credit, both published by a highly regarded university press. The first details the history of what is now on of the largest vaccine producers in the world, sanofi pasteur, manufacturer of the H1N1 virus. The second tells the story of a woman who took her company from the coal fields of Pennsylvania to the NASDAQ. I've had a nationally syndicated column through a unit of DowJones. Just because I'm not top of the bestseller list doesn't mean the books aren't meaningful contributions to the literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrwidmer (talk • contribs) 17:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The Spirit of Swiftwater [69], although published in 1988, is in only 14 worldcat libraries, and One in a Million: A Memoir [70], which he ghostwrote, is in only 52. ( I suggest adding the articles on the two books to the deletion nomination.) DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 15:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- (Like) Linus (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)
Demos are assumed non-notable per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Best summed up by the article: "All of the other tracks are lost to obscurity." Despite plenty of sources discussing the track Like (Linus), I can find no signficant coverage in reliable independent sources for the demo. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete-Per Gene, A google search brings up nothing but Lyrics and Youtube videos of it live no Reliable Sources and not a single.--SKATER Speak. 22:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular T · C 00:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Aboobacker Ahmad (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)
Lack of notability Supertouch (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is in fact notable as a socio-religious leader, but he is known by the name "kanthapuram". So the article be rather renamed to "Kanthapuram Aboobackar Musliyar". See http://www.kanthapuram.com/eng/details.asp?ID=profile. Note that his followers and he himself prefixes the title "Sheikh", but that is a title and be avoided. Article needs a complete cleanup as it is written in a peacocky fashion Zencv Whisper 22:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable - Does not meet qualifications for notability --SuperHappyPerson (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)SuperHappyPerson[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Zencv poined out, the subject is popularly known by the name "Kanthapuram Aboobackar Musliyar" and plenty of reliable sources availabe, such as [71], [72], [73], [74], and [75]. Salih (talk) 09:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 15:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mister (novel) (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 appears to be promotional in nature, does not provide proof of notability, and has no reliable sources; all three references are to neo-Nazi websites that do not satisfy WP: RS. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - non notable and fringe.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the novel has been repeatedly ranked alongside major works of literarure and reviewed in several languages. Needs more sources, that is all. 188.220.166.33 (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- While more sources have been added, none of them satisfy WP: RS, in my opinion. An audio recording of The Political Cesspool? Not a reliable source. A German fringe website called "sezession.de"? Doesn't appear to be a reliable source. Reason Radio Network also looks suspect; it appears to be dedicated wholly or partly to promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and its programming lineup includes the likes of Michael Collins Piper, Jeff Rense and Texe Marrs. The Occidental Quarterly (and Observer) aren't reliable sources either. If you want a second opinion, visit the reliable sources noticeboard. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no indication that sources are reliable and show any degree of notability. (article of course has problems beyond notability, but thats irrelevant to discussion at hand). likely a self published or vanity press title, but regardless has not broken through anywhere into notability.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment The credibility of the publishing house is called to question by one of the supposed sources (Occidental Quarterly) "On a separate note—the copy of Mister I read was mysteriously plagued by small typographical errors." And when you go to Iron Sky Publishing, you find that they have a total of 3 works in their catalog. Active Banana (talk) 17:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - The novel has been ranked alongside other novels listed in wikipedia and has been widely reviewed and is available in both the US and UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.218.172 (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This comment is very similar to the earlier comment by 188.220.166.33, and neither IP has edited any article not directly related to this novel (thus making both single purpose accounts). Could this be a case of sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry or attempted vote stacking? Stonemason89 (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Whois" tracks both to ISPs in Berkshire, Great Britain. Active Banana (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Only worldcat copy listed is in the British Library. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I would also add that the similarity of the IP address comments suggests sockpuppetry at worst, and comments worth little weight at best. I found the comment by Active Banana regarding the article's subject particularly incriminating...and humorous. Chicken Wing (talk) 02:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 00:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mike Speedy (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)
Insufficiently notable subject. City council member who does not meet the notability requirements of the WP:GNG. Also see WP:BIO#Politicians, which states, "A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists."[76] This is not the case here. PROD contested, so comes here for deletion. — Satori Son 14:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. no assertion of notability, no significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jujutacular T · C 00:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Indianapolis is a large metropolitan area, so it's not inconceivable that one of its councillors might meet WP:POLITICIAN, but I'm not seeing the requisite significant press coverage here. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Mr. Pine. Redirecting as a personal editorial decision. Consider this a no consensus close with leave to speedy renominate. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The Gift of Wolves (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)
It doesn't seem to meet our criteria at WP:NAlbums although if Mr. Pine does, perhaps it can be merged there. We seem to have a group of related articles all featuring Matt McLennan, eg Mr Pine and Cone Five. Dougweller (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, incomplete and withdrawn nomination, no delete votes. Non-admin closure. --Pgallert (talk) 10:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hunting High and Low (Stratovarius 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)
Prod removed and notability claimed on talkpage but only through inherited notability, happy enough if this is redirected rather than deleted Richhoncho (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- WITHDRAW NOMINATION. I appear to have got my signals crossed. Many apologies to all. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.