Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 31

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 30 December 1 January >

Purge server cache

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

The result was snowball keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Golconda Express

edit
Golconda Express (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)

fairly obviously not notable; it's a single slot on the train timetable. The fact that a single source says it was the fastest steam train in India does not allow it to pass WP:GNG, or WP:INDISCRIMINATE, for that matter. Ironholds (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Fairly obviously notable as one can see from inspection of the sources per WP:BEFORE. These include lots of news coverage of a major derailment; coverage in books, including a complete book dedicated exclusively to this topic; and details of speed records and other facts about the service. And that's just in English; no doubt there is much more in the local languages of Urdu and Telegu, which will not appear in ordinary searches. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The coverage of a derailment does not denote coverage of a particular slot on a train timetable; notability is not inherited. Is there actually a complete book dedicated to a slot in a train timetable? Ironholds (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there is, as you would know if you had properly followed the deletion process rather than trying to set another speed record with a prodigious deletion spree. Your claim that the service is but a single slot in the timetable is the weak argument of WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. This is quite inadequate as a reason to delete as notability does not depend upon quantity. And, in any case, if there were any sense to that argument, the remedy would not be deleting but instead merger into a larger topic such as the line or the railway company. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The derailment received widespread coverage including debates in the national parliament. It can be added to the article. It is a named train service - that makes it slightly more than just "a particular slot on a train timetable". It used to hold the fastest train record in India. --Sodabottle (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "This train runs via Vijayawada, Warangal and Kazipet. This leaves Guntur at 5:45AM to reach Secunderabad at 13:45hrs. Return a second rake of this train leaves Secunderabad at 13:05hrs to reach Guntur at 21:20 hrs." implies a single slot. If the derailment is notable, it can be given separate coverage; again, notability is not inherited. The potters bar crash does not give that particular slot in the National Rail timetable notability. Ironholds (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. Named passenger trains are usually individually notable, and are often quite different from one another in their equipment, length, schedules and pricing. - Eastmain (talk) 08:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Another reason why WP:BEFORE should be required. Nominations like this just waste time. Over-rapid NPP does not work well. DGG ( talk ) 17:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination declaring its notability does not seem well-thought out. It appears to be notable from article and sources. Something other than nominating for deletion would have been a better use of community time. Please consider. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 20:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not sure of the state of the article before the present, but at this point it seems to satisfy the notability guidelines and merits inclusion. Regards, Cocytus [»talk«] 04:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there seems to be sufficient coverage to pass the GNG. The book mentioned by Colonel Warden shoulkd be added to the article. DES (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it has a reference to a book citation and the fact when the book was published. I think the article needs more sources about the train though. --Bsadowski1 04:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It gets mentioned in a book for being the fastest steam passenger train in India back in 1973, plus has news coverage. Dream Focus 08:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SilkTork *YES! 12:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ali ‘Fingerz’ Esbai

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT; his achievements are not enough, when not backed up by reliable sources, to pass. Forgive me if I don't think "Bahrain's Funniest Person" is a title that passes the entertainment guidelines :P. Ironholds (talk) 23:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Microsoft Office 2007#PDF. Straightforward result really. NJA (t/c) 08:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SaveasPDFandXPS

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

fails WP:GNG; coverage, while there, is not sufficient to pass the test. It is all very brief, without the "significant" element required. Ironholds (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Sufficient consensus to suggest that the topic is non-notable exists. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Masters of the Universe vehicles

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

Fails notability criteria is WP:FANCRUFT, WP:TOYS,WP:NOTE Dwanyewest (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP Fancruft is not a reason for deletion. Toys is a failed proposal - and in any case the toys of these vehicles (in aggregate) meet the proposed notability criteria. Masters of the Universe is quite notable. The vehicles of masters of the universe formed a massive and notable part in the series (not to mention the earlier mentioned range of toys). Certainly many of the individual vehicles are not notable - that's why many don't have their own articles - but in aggregate, notable and verifiable. --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dwanyewest (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd support the WP:BUNDLE of those either in this AfD or perhaps a better option, a separate bundle for articles on MOTU vehicles, but read that and decide for yourself; it's not always a good idea. Consider also the options under WP:BEFORE. And again, it doesn't really help matters to keep saying "fancruft." The essay WP:FANCRUFT itself notes it can be uncivil and WP:ITSCRUFT is something to avoid. The main, major problems here are N, RS, V and maybe OR. Шизомби (SZ) (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sure someone will let me know why I'm wrong, :) but I think that looking at a page full of red links shows that there is a lack of notability. If the subjects themselves aren't worthy of articles, then why would a list of them be any more worthy or notable? Sabiona (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Red links aren't a valid reason to delete something. A list on Wikipedia isn't just to aid in navigation and link to various articles, but can also exist like an almanac, showing information about a notable subject. WP:LIST A massively profitable series of toys is rather notable to list. Dream Focus 08:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I found a 1987 news story in Chicago Tribune that says the sales of these toys accounted for a billion dollars since 1982. All of the toys are notable, since they, and their insanely profitable sales, get news coverage. Plus common sense. You have a series that major, and this is a key part of it. You can't fit them all on one page, so its a valid content fork to split things into side articles for easier viewing. Dream Focus 08:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to a lack of non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. If a product line (or lines) are notable then mention it as a footnote in the Masters of the Universe article, don't create a separate long list of unreferenced material. JBsupreme (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability and WP:V are issues. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I'm not finding much on these, not even when searching by pairs of names in the list. Even collector's forums don't seem to arrange them this way. Maybe they were sold in packages with their riders? Abductive (reasoning) 22:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 18:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MediaCoder

edit
MediaCoder (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 merits deletion because of:

Lack of Notability: This article neither asserts any notability nor there is any significant coverage on this subject in reliable sources.

  1. The article itself claims no notability.

(updated) False assertion of Notability: This article attempts to establish its notability through Bombardment of passing mentions in reliable sources. There is no significant coverage.

  1. Sources mentioned in this article only touch the matter lightly. For an example of such sources, see below.
  2. Searches conducted in Google Scholar, Google Books and Google News came up with only trivial coverages in form of passing mentions is sentences like "... in test that I conducted in MediaCoder..." or "...such as MediaCoder which supports CUDA..."
  3. PC World Download does feature this product but no user has ever reviewed this product. Only a handful of users have rated it. No PC World Editor has reviewed this product.
  4. CNET Download does feature this product but No CNET Editor has reviewed this product. Very few users have ever rated it.

Lack of reliable secondary sources: This artice does not cite any source except for a handful of insignificant instances.

Serious advertisement role: This article is written like an advertisement. It's primary contributor is Stanleyhuang (talk · contribs), the application developer, who has only contributed to this article and sees fit to dismiss the fact that this article is an Adware and instead write "MediaCoder is a freeware [~snip~] MediaCoder is free of charge and is supported by bundling OpenCandy software recommendation service in its installer." (Also see Serious statements from the author of MediaCoder) Fleet Command (talk) 23:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Updated 09:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let's make it clear for you: This article has three problems: Notability, Reliable sources and serving as an advertisement. All these problem must be solved if this article is to be included in Wikipedia; all not just one. In other word, if you incorporate all these sources in the article and even incorporate them in footnotes, the article must not look like the promotional product page of its web site plus some testimonials. (Providing testimonials is another well-know technique of advertisement.) A rule of thumb is: When you read a Wikipedia article about a product you must not feel that nothing is added to your knowledge than when you were reading its product page info.

    As you can see, notability is just your smallest issue.

    Fleet Command (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think notability has been clearly established from two dozen reliable sources. As for WP:PROMOTION, you don't seem to understand what that actually means. Here's an example where I explained why an article read promotional to me. Please do the same for this one; i.e. write on the talk page which passages you think fail WP:NPOV. Besides, these issues are normally fixed by editing, deleting the entire article is only the last resort if no reliable sources exists from which to write it in WP:NPOV, which clearly is not the case here. Pcap ping 09:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, looks like we have a difference of opinion. Obviously, I think this article is beyond redemption and you think there is no truth-telling saint that is more sacred than this article. I think it is time to stand down and have others cast their votes. Fleet Command (talk) 12:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks like a decent article to me, I don't see what the bother is. Some of the writing is awkward but that's just a matter of WP:BETTER. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article seems reasonably balanced and the product has been recognized as significant by reliable sources. The article has 34 references, of which more than half seem to be in English. By surfing the web one can learn that the product is no longer open source, and the author seems to have unnecessarily placed himself in some licensing difficulties. This info, while interesting, has probably not been published by any reliable source yet, so it can't be included. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Thank you, Ed Johnston. Well said.

      However, I feel obliged to attract your attention to a quotation from WP:BIG:

      Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, 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 because it has 1 million views on YouTube.

I nominated this article because it seems to me that sources which mention this product lack sufficient quality. For example, the USA Today source might sound like a very credible name. However, if you take a closer look, the only thing that it states is:

So you may need to convert a video to a different format. MediaCoder can convert videos between a variety of different formats. MediaCoder isn't the easiest program. But it will help you with difficult files. MediaCoder doesn't work with copy-protected videos. It will run on Macs, but features are limited.

— Kim Komando, USA Today column, 21 February 2008
You see? All it says is: MediaCoder is free but it is not one of the best. In my humble opinion, this source does not add to the notability of subject. The other source from USA Today, which our friend Pcap has introduced, says:

The camcorder may have come with software to do that. If not, MediaCoder is a free conversion program, but it's for advanced users. You can also try Nero 9 ($80), Pinnacle Studio Plus 12 ($100) or Sony Vegas Movie Studio Platinum ($85). With a Mac, use iMovie 8. Find links to all these programs at www.komando.com/news.

— Kim Komando, USA Today column, 6 November 2008]
Again, this source merely mentions the product in a passing manner and not as good solution but rather as an option to which one must succumb. In the mean time, Wikipedia notability guideline demands "significant coverage".
In my humble opinion, these sources only take away notability. It is not the matter of Lots of Sources, but rather, it is the matter of Significant Coverage in Reliable Sources.
Again, thanks for your opinion. It was a significant opinion. Fleet Command (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More example of insignificance of sources (English only)
Source Problem
CNET Review Only trivial coverage. The only mention of MediaCoder is "Video playback requires you to convert your files using the included MediaCoder application before transferring the files to the Memorex MMP8640."
Brisbane Times, 7 August 2008 Trivial mention. It just says "the supplied MediaCoder software isn't preset for the LXPI". No significant coverage as mandated by WP:N.
New York Times, 12 June 2008 Only trivial coverage. The only mention of MediaCoder is "The open-source program MediaCoder (mediacoder.sourceforge.net) may also work for you."
New York Times, 10 September 2008 Only trivial coverage. The only mention is "there are plenty of programs to choose from, and some, like MediaCoder (mediacoder.sourceforge.net) are free open-source solutions."
PC World Review 1. Due to use of vague phrases, it cannot be used to cite anything encyclopedic in the article, except for saying that "PC World mentioned it". Basically, all it says is: "MediaCoder is a converter with plug-ins that doesn't run on Vista." Only marginally useful in a Critical Reception section.

2. Obscure. Only one user has voted for the software.

Perhaps its best if someone with knowledge of foreign language check the other sources. Fleet Command (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most fantastic misrepresentation of sources I've ever seen in an AfD. Cherry picking the sources with the least coverage and tearing them up is an amazing straw man argument. I urge everyone to read the last paragraph in the lead of the actual article, and see in what context those sources are cited. Pcap ping 10:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cherry-picked sources with highest reputation for being reliable. And yes, I also encourage our readers to take notice of the context. Fleet Command (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the lead section, as written now, is yet another reason: It is advertisement-like: Remember those street advertisers who try to stop you in the street and say: "Please! Please try our brand! It is certified by this and that. It's this celebrity and that celebrity’s favorite. It is the highest-selling in this country and that country." That's how the lead section of this article looks like. Fleet Command (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep This is a well known converter app, and seems to have many reviews (Far more than some software on Wikipedia) the article does need tidying up and the tone needs changing but not deleting, methinks Fleet Command is protesting rather loudly for little reason? lɘɘяɘM яɘɫƨɐƮ 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Microsoft PowerToys. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel

edit
AfDs for this article:
Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel (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)

Nomination: This article fails to meet Wikipedia notability guideline requirements as it has failed to introduce significant coverage in secondary sources. Although this article has introduced sources, these sources only trivially mention the subject and provide no significant coverage.

Reason for re-nomination:

  1. The reason given for abrupt closure of the first nomination is outweighed by the non-notability of this article. Good- or bad-faith, this article remains not notable.
  2. The reason given for abrupt closure of the first nomination is invalid: Although I asked Joe Chill (talk · contribs) to nominate the article for deletion, I did alert him of the issue of faith. Fleet Command (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Notability not established under guidelines SilkTork *YES! 12:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter John

edit
Peter John (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)

Cllrs are not generally deemed notable under WP:POLITICIAN. If he were leader of the council, or a cabinet member, this would be another matter, but as things stand, appears to be promotional, anticipating future notability. (Article appears to have been created by the subject, and edited in large part by his co-Cllrs, so although they're obviously welcome in the debate, please do read our policies on notability, reliable sources, verifiability, bios of living people and politicians first if you don't come here often) Saalstin (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is and was absolutely no "local sources don't count" clause in WP:GNG. If a "local" source has editorial control over its content and is independent of the topic, it is a reliable source, per WP:SOURCES. And besides, we're talking about a major borough of London, not a little community. --Oakshade (talk) 03:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is about the quality of the source and publisher, not the size of the local community. Depending on the circumstances of each case, a local community website may be more or less reliable than a blog. My point is that it cannot automatically be assumed that the website is reliable; that is a subjective judgement based on the known quality of the publisher and their ability to verify facts. As is stated in the guidance you linked to, "The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. In general, the best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source."
A "small family-run web and print publishing business" could be as reliable as The Daily Telegraph or as unreliable as the Daily Sport. Unless there is some strong evidence of the publisher's reliability I would place the quality of it somewhere between a blog and a local newspaper. That is a fairly weak source on which to place the foundation of an entire article. Road Wizard (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely nothing wrong with the source London SE1 (SE1 is the postal code for south London, btw). It could be owned by a family or Rupert Murdoch (DT). It doesn't matter. What matters to WP:GNG is independent editorial control over its content. In the case of London SE1, while you are calling it weak, it actually appears to be a very thorough journalistic news source for south London.--Oakshade (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Existing source material is very weak; 6 from the council website referring to one of the councillors (basically a self-published source), 1 from the local Labour party about their councillor (another self-published source), 1 from a blog (Operation Black Vote) and 1 from a local community website of unknown reliability. The strongest source appears to be the Financial Times, but the reference is trivial (1 sentence out of the whole article, and much of that is a quote about somebody else). The article needs far more independent, non-trivial, reliable sources to be sustainable. Road Wizard (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Oakshade argues, passionately and accurately, that the GNG trumps the subject's failure to meet the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN. Indeed it does, but I'm missing the part where there's a single reliable source discussing Mr. John in "significant detail," as the GNG requires. Google News UK returns a dozen hits for the past year from the Southwark News (which its own website claims to be a borough weekly with a circulation of 9,660), each and every one of them a quote about some local political issue or another, but none about Mr. John.  Ravenswing  09:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Snappy (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow keep. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Anthony Griffith

edit
Jason Anthony Griffith (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:BLP of questionable notability flagged as unsourced since September 2009 and not remediated. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SilkTork *YES! 12:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Killing of the night (Book)

edit
Killing of the night (Book) (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 appears that this book has never been published, and the page author is one of the people listed as the book authors. Prod removed by page author. PRobably shold have been speedied, but with rejected prod, moving on to this. ArglebargleIV (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - under which criteria could it have been speedied? 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

from the mouth of the writer I AM THE WRITER AND THE BOOK IS REAL i didnt go to a big publsing company and done it all from home only 50 copies of the book were made but more is getting printed out as i type any so no you wont find it online because its not published by a big company.

  • My name is Bethany and I am the creator of the article. I would just like to say in objection to this deletion request that this book IS a real book, and that the author of the deletion request has no evidence of this. I am also going to state that I am not the author of the book. Someone called Bethany Hawkins is the joint author, but I am not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebethseesall (talk • contribs) 20:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence (such as a verifiable ISBN number) that the book even exists, let alone that it fulfils the criteria for notable books. Hqb (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that an article about a book needed any ISBN number of such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebethseesall (talk • contribs) 21:09, 31 December 2009
See WP:BK#Threshold standards. Hqb (talk) 21:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The question is not whether the book exists, but whether it is notable enough to appear in an encyclopedia. This book is not yet notable, which at least requires notice by the outside world. Until then, the article is an advertisement, which is not appropriate for this forum. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE There are plenty of articles on books on this website and I don't see why my article is any different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebethseesall (talk • contribs) 21:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: As already stated, this is a discussion, not a vote, and my first edit was not a vandilisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebethseesall (talk • contribs) 21:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: As a new user, we understand that you're unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works, but any user can easily see the entire contribution history of any other user. That was, in point of fact, your first edit.  Ravenswing  04:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the book were published, there would be at least one hit on Google for the title + Bethany, or the title + Blayne. Apart from this article, of course. If it is written but not yet published, it would fall under WP:CRYSTAL. If it is published online, no-one will be able to find it at present. If it is not written, it is a hoax. In any of these cases, the only verdict can be 'delete'. It's quite a good plot idea, slightly reminiscent of Groundhog Day and another whose name escapes me, but different enough to succeed. If it is published - other than by a vanity publisher or self-publisher like lulu.com - then let us know who by and when. I doubt that this information can be given. If it is written but not published, then do keep trying to get it in print - even via lulu perhaps. That won't get it on here, but it might then get taken up by a bigger publisher. Peridon (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This was posted without having noticed post from one of the authors above. Doesn't affect my opinion. Peridon (talk) 12:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the author's own words: "done it all from home only 50 copies of the book were made"; thus, easily fails WP:BK. The fact that there are other articles about books doesn't mean any article is accepted willy-nilly. Best of luck with your work, but at this point the subject doesn't meet notability standards. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My first edit was a page on Bethany Hawkins, about the author of this book, in fact. So no, that was not my first edit.--Thebethseesall (talk) 19:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Snowball Speedy Delete under A7 and G11. Clearly someone having an ego trip. Not even close to reaching WP:BK. --A1octopus (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Bethany mainly (and others please note) Please do not delete posts on this page. If you have an issue over what someone says, you may take it up in the relevant place. If you want to cancel a comment of your own, use strikethrough. As to your first edit, if the Bethany Hawkins article was deleted before the alleged incident referred to above, your edit there would disappear from sight in your contribs list, so the edit referred to here would look like your first edit. It may be that someone owes you an apology. It may be the other way round. Peridon (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, good point ... since I'm not an admin, I don't see edits to deleted pages. I'm perfectly happy to correct myself to say that Thebethseesall's earliest surviving edit was to vandalize a user page.  Ravenswing  21:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ta for that. Bethany, shake hands? Peridon (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure --Thebethseesall (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. Peridon (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, not even a proper Wikipedia article, no isbn or anything. Jameswa21 (talk) 01:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Style over substance fallacy

edit
Style over substance fallacy (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 article is a fork, as the text itself notes that the various examples are based on other fallacies, such as the red herring or ad hominem. There is no evidence of verifiability due to the lack of sources. On a Google search, this Wiki article is the topmost hit, with all others being NN websites. We're not a compendium for original research; this article should never have happened. WaltCip (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SOUIT

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

Contested prod. Article is about a neologism, with no reliable sources provided or found. Google search for the entire term (Service Oriented User Interface Technology) returns two results - both from Wikipedia. TNXMan 20:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagg Bozied

edit
Tagg Bozied (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 career minor leaguer. Is he really notable? Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. G11. And WP:ONEDAY , WP:PROMOTION, etc. SilkTork *YES! 12:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Corretto (coffee roaster)

edit
Corretto (coffee roaster) (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 only source I can find for this (in Google News and Books, and even Web) is the Coffee Snobs forum mentioned in the article. Besides a large number of unverified statements, the article is a bit too much a how-to, but the basic issue: I don't see notability established by independent, reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and maybe add a small note at Coffee roaster. Not showing notability on its own yet. 2 says you, says two 19:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. EdJohnston (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential prevarications (United States)

edit
Presidential prevarications (United States) (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 POV war just waiting to happen.

For this article to avoid permanent POV issues, at the very least there has to be some consensus standard that can be used to determine which Presidential lies make it into the article and which ones aren't notable enough. For the life of me I can't imagine what such a standard would be. Without such a standard, you don't have an article, you're going to have a chain of frequently-reverted essays on "Why President X, Who I Hate And You Should Too, Lies Like A Rug".

(This is completely apart from the issue that "prevarications" in the title of the article sounds too elaborate and cutesy, which I realize is not a valid reason for deletion at AFD.) ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The article presents arbitrary information. It leaves and impression that certain presidents did not lie or tell "untruths". It is subjective in its approach. I do not think the author intends to mislead and I don't detect a slanted bias. However, the omissions are misleading and the article does not provide comprehensive information or a solid thesis. While the effort and research are good, the article should be removed. Mike x moran (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly lean toward thinking that this article is problematic, but I don't see where the person bringing it to AFD has raised any reason for removal based in WP policy or guideline. Could someone provide one? Please provide a link to the relevant policy or guideline. Otherwise, this seems like a Wikipedia:I just don't like it type argument. Locke9k (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is some of my thinking for why the article should be removed:

The article does not adequately cover all presidents' untruths, so as the author states in his/her postings it is a means to keep watch on the presidents. WP is not a forum for a soap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
WP is not an forum for advocacy, as stated by the author "I think there's a climate of presidential worship in America, and articles like this one can help people see that presidents are merely people too, with foibles, with passions, emotional people who can and will and do make mistakes." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not
It is an original work and incomplete representation of the facts. By omission the article suggests that T. Roosevelt and W. Wilson did not lie. The subject topic is newly named and is not providing information on existing work or thinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

I find it to be relatively well thought out and very interesting. If it was a blog or a book I would read it and LOVE to discuss and argue the points. Kudos to the author. It should be deleted from WP simply because it doesn't belong here. Mike x moran (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response by the article's creator

edit

I created this article. I'm responding to these dubious challenges.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may not agree with the challenges, but they aren't "dubious". You did a fine job with the article. It is something to be proud of. The only discussion I see is if it belongs on Wikipedia. I have not seen any posting questioning your or your work in a personal way. Stating that the challenges are "dubious" is dismissive and could be considered insulting. Based on your writing and other postings I would assume that is not what you meant, but I don't presume to speak for you. 68.194.178.228 (talk) 10:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I totally disagree with the argument "POV wars about to happen" is valid. The article has been around for a month. But there have been NO POV wars. Why? Frankly, an editor's thinking that an article is similar to another article in which there were POV wars is an example of lackluster thinking at its finest. Further, all Wikipedia articles have some kind of WP:POV issues to varying extents. Articles like United States and Foreign policy of the United States have had huge POV concerns, and people will battle over them. It's the battling itself that's a recognized part of the fundamental process why Wikipedia works, because different opinions are allowed to battle each other, and articles improve as a result. Frankly, I'm more worried about articles which don't get much debate; sometimes, stupid thinking can fester in them for years.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second, so my second point is that POV warring, if and when it does happen, isn't necessarily bad.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third, the criticism that "I can't think of what a standard for presidential lying should be" is a nebulous criteria for deleting an article. There are numerous articles in which there is disagreement about what constitutes a proper standard. And this lack of agreement, in itself, isn't enough to justify deletion. And, here's my proposed standard for what constitutes a presidential lie: (1) coverage in major newspapers (2) attention by political scientists (3) coverage by major comedians like Stephen Colbert. By this criteria, the best overall lies are Clinton's "I did NOT have sex with that woman" and Nixon's "I am NOT a crook". I think these are the two leading contenders, but I realize others may have favorites. Notice that both a Democrat (Clinton) and a Republican (Nixon) are emphasized here; this isn't about partisan politics.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth, I think this IS the PRECISE TYPE OF ARTICLE FOR WIKIPEDIA. It merits inclusion because it holds ALL presidents accountable. If they LIE, they go here in Wikipedia. It's an incentive for current and future presidents to TELL THE TRUTH. That's what Wikipedia is all about, in my view. It's important. Presidential lying, when it happens, MATTERS. The word "prevarications" by the way, was a way to avoid the harsher sounding "Presidential Lies" which, for me, sounded too judgmental and too POV-ish. --Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, for these reasons, my vote is:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. My above four reasons: POV warring hasn't happened; if it does, we'll deal with it then and even if it does, it will probably a good thing. It isn't partisan (both R and D presidents are included). The subject of which lies to include will always be subject to debate, but it's very similar to WP:VERIFY and WP:NOTABILITY; we're talking notable lies, important ones, whoppers. The article is well referenced. Last, it holds politicians feet to the fire; if they LIE, they go in WIKIPEDIA. An incentive to TELL THE TRUTH. And, moreover, let me just say, although this ISN'T a valid Wikipedia criteria for inclusion, but it IS for me; this article is fun. :)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Inherently subjective and POV. You can't sensibly create objective standards for what constitutes a "prevarication" - even "coverage in reliable sources" wouldn't do the job because genuinely reliable sources will be too cautious to call a President a liar. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a magnet for original research and personal opinion. Example: Jeferson "prevaricated" when he said he "would uphold the Constitution" in his oath of office, then he purchased Louisiana. A response could be that the opportunity to purchase Louisiana was an unforeseen opportunity, rather than a grand scheme he had in mind when he took office. Ditto for Clinton not having "sexual relations" with "that woman." There is no evidence he had coitus with her, and there was a journal article during the impeachment showing that youth in the US do not consider fellatio to be "sexual relations." It a mess now with no indication it will get better, since it is and will be mired in partisan opinion. Edison (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article's topic has severe problems with bias in that a president's detractors are likely to seize on any misstatement as being a lie, while his supporters are likely to try to seek excuses or attempt to prove that his statement was accurate or at least not an intentional lie. This problem is likely to be most apparent with regard to recent presidents such as Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, which also raises the issue of recentism. There is also an issue with regard to defining what a lie is. I would not consider a broken promise to be a lie, unless the promiser never intended to fulfill the promise. Several of the alleged lies in the article are really just broken promises, and that's not the same thing. And what do we do about things like Obama's claim to have visited "57 states" during his campaign (not currently listed in this article, but then no Obama statements currently are)? Obviously, that wasn't a true statement, but does that make it a lie per se? (The following are additional problems which may not necessarily be reasons for deletion: Note that the article currently identifies only two "prevarications" made by any of the first 31 presidents. Unfortunately, I believe it is much more likely that editors will try to supply evidence of lies by Clinton, Bush, and Obama than by Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, and James Buchanan, thus leaving this article perpetually biased toward covering lies by the recent presidents. And the article has some irrelevant material, such as Parson Weems' myth about George Washington chopping down the cherry tree, which was not said by Washington himself, but about him after his death, and Abraham Lincoln's joke about being "two-faced". Finally, the article contains an excessive number of footnotes used merely to prove the order of the presidents, which is in no dispute anyway.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:ATTACK. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable. Thinboy00 @956, i.e. 21:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While I tend to see problems with this page, its not clear to me from any argument made thus far how it is in conflict with any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Many of the statements in the page are cited, so its not clear to me how it is unverifiable. Furthermore, the fact that a subject is contentions or a magnet for POV wars is no reason at all to delete. Arguments that the page will be 'used' for some particular purpose are irrelevant. Can someone explain a way in which a Wikipedia policy or guideline requires deletion of this page? Can you explain how it is non-notable, unverifiable, or something else Wikipedia is not? Locke9k (talk) 22:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The whole point of this article appears to be to characterize various statements as lies, which seems to be a violation of the WP:NPOV policy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Just thought I'd come back and explain the "unverifiable" thing. Although it is verifiable that various "prevarications" have occurred, we cannot easily verify whether a given event constitutes a "prevarication" or not ("prevarication" isn't well defined, in a sense). Hence the article is inherently unverifiable. This comment is an anachronism (see time stamps in signatures). --Thinboy00 @991, i.e. 22:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Need a policy? See verifiability and WP:NPOV. Edison (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Revisionists always seem to make lies out of truth and truth out of lies. Partisan cites can be found for just about any Presidental Prevacation one way or the other--Mike Cline (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mkativerata. Handschuh-talk to me 07:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'd like to reiterate from the article creator above: "Fourth, I think this IS the PRECISE TYPE OF ARTICLE FOR WIKIPEDIA. It merits inclusion because it holds ALL presidents accountable. If they LIE, they go here in Wikipedia. It's an incentive for current and future presidents to TELL THE TRUTH. That's what Wikipedia is all about, in my view." To quote from Jed Bartlett, "there it is." This article is the creator's soapbox, and just on that alone - never mind the BLP or the POV issues - this article cannot stand.  Ravenswing  09:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Interesting idea but WP:YDIW. WP:NOT#FactCheck.org. Redirect to Almost everything a President has ever said. An infinitely large subject; we don't have articles on All crows that are black; maybe Presidential truthtelling (United States) would be a manageable size. There's only "one source," a 2007 magazine article, for the Washington "cherry tree" story being false, and it only "suggests" it "probably" is? In all seriousness, there are some books on the subject such as When Presidents Lie: A History of Official Deception and Its Consequences‎, Big Bush Lies: The 20 Most Telling Lies of President George W. Bush, The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq, Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn't Tell You, To Err Is Reagan: Lies and Deceptions from the President, and so on and articles like "The Contemporary Presidency: Presidential Lies" in Presidential Studies Quarterly, but as a practical matter I don't know how one would do an encyclopedia article about it, for the reasons others have stated above. Шизомби (SZ) (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite aside that, as has been accurately stated above, whether a President "lies" or not these days comes down overwhelmingly on whether he belongs to the political party for which you vote.  Ravenswing  18:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the reasons others have stated above, as you accurately state above "has been accurately stated above," I agree. In fact, for the reasons stated above, I wrote "for the reasons others have stated above." So above all other reasons, for the above reasons. :-) Шизомби (SZ) (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching from Keep to Delete. Yes I'm coming around to agreeing with all you fine people. Yes it was fun creating it; but it will be even more fun deleting the fuc--r. I only wish we could all gather around the article and, somebody with a plunger, could blow it to smithereens. Years back, my buddies and I spent a day making this model of a fort with popsicle sticks and glue during the day; but at night, we gathered around outside, and lit it up! Such fun! Too bad Wikipedia doesn't have something similar where we could take out an article and LIGHT IT UP or somehow watch it go POOF. I always think Wikipedia should be fun fun fun, and it's too bad we can't have some fun moment where we all destroy stuff, like kicking down a sandcastle is AS fun or MORE than actually building the critter. In the future I'll probably write more articles for the express purpose of enjoying the destruction cause I think that's what's great about this weird experiment called Wikipedia. I think on some level that we can all grasp the weirdness, that creating and destroying are what's so great about life.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Forget destroy, someone, perhaps you, could write a coffee table book with this material. I'll write volume 2, Biblical prevarications!! I like the concept of your article, but wikipedia, imho, is not the proper venue.--Milowent (talk) 05:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's always Wikipedia:Subpages for experimenting or trying to develop an article that might not make it when written in the articlespace, and you can delete your own subpages as you like. Doing so in the articlespace, if you're serious, would be WP:Disruptive editing, I suspect. There might be wikis for collaborative writing of pieces that don't fit the concept of an encyclopedia, but I'm not familiar with what options might exist in that regard. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while i think we can all agree that its a well documented fact that most, if not all, US presidents have lied while in office, what makes this notable? individual instances may be notable. lying UNDER OATH is ALWAYS notable for a public figure. but this article sets up a structure that is inherently pov. Why is this subject so important? because someone wants to show that presidents are human? great goal, great website idea, lousy encyclopedia article. of course, the article name is utterly hopeless due to its unnecessary assonance, but even if changed to, say "presidential lies" what makes presidential lies specifically important? the president is held to no greater degree of honesty than any other public official not under oath, or for that matter anybody. the prez is not elected to tell the truth, but on the basis of the success of their campaign to show that they can perform the duties of prez: signing bills into law, negotiating treaties, etc. some of this may REQUIRE telling lies. its not against the law to lie, generally. I just see this as a huge effort to push a point of view. if there were numerous books and articles on the subject of presidential lies (not books which simply mention specific lies), i would say yes, write an article. Noam Chomsky would see every president since truman tried for treason. was that for lying, or for executive actions? keep the important instances in the articles on each president.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inherently subjective. One man's prevariation is another man's diplomatic hedging. Lying is a common allegation against presidents one dislikes, while never alleged against presidents one likes. I will say this article is laudably nonpartisan, but still suffers a number of problems including original research and recentism. It'd inherently non-encyclopedic. However, it would make a great web page or blog, and I would suggest the author consider that outlet instead of Wikipedia. (presidentialprevarications.com?) --MelanieN (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Melanie[reply]
  • Strong delete. The essay is incredible POV. Selective bolding of words show the POV. Also, the idea of counting "lies" told during public statements in the interest of national security as being the same as lies told under oath about getting a blowjob is apples and oranges. The format (the boxes) don't allow for significant comparison by differing POV's. Instead it just says "here is the truth" as a statement of fact. Was Nixon a "crook"? That would depend on how you define crook, wouldn't it? When I hear "crook", I think thief. Nixon lied. Is that being a "crook"? Depends on who you ask, but this thing simply says "he was". Runs afoul of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and possibly WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of creatures in Primeval

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of creatures in Primeval (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)

Unnotable list of fictional creatures from the Primeval series. No significant coverage in reliable, third party sources, and series already has a List of Primeval characters for discussions specific creators relavant to the series. Bulk of article "sources" are from the series and other primarily sources, with other actual reliable sources being used for WP:OR to "prove" personal views about the creators while not actually referencing the series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually look at those sources? The Digital Spy article is about Flemyng and Rouass joining the cast, and is not significant coverage of neither the "Dracorex" section where it is used nor the topic as a whole. The Radio Times article is an interview with the creators and again, not significant coverage of neither the "Pristichampsus" nor the topic as a whole. The Metro article never even MENTIONS the series at all, it is purely about sabre-tooth cats. Again, what notability has been established for this topic? None at all.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not. There is a major difference (and please don't presume to guess what I think about the character list). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are editorial issues and are not excuses to delete articles. WossOccurring (talk) 21:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Characters" pages certainly do not cover the same ground. And is it kosher to do an AFD without any discussion or even mention on the talk page? And while I have the article on my "Watch" list, I didn't notice this change till today, as adding the AFD tag was described, very disingenuously I think, as "add missing tag", so I didn't bother to even look at the page when I saw the notification. Was that deliberate? And doing it at Christmas also seems designed to get under the radar of interested parties. And -- the link to "this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page" is broken/red, by design, accident or carelessness, I don't know. Took me 10 minutes to find this page. Barsoomian (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you express any more good faith there?. Twinkle messed up in adding the tag, so I fixed it, and didn't realize the template didn't pick up the page name the way it made it sound like it would. Doing it on Christmas is irrelevant. Wikipedia is active enough, the AfD is 7 days long, and not everyone celebrates. Why don't you reread WP:AGF and then rethink your "keep" argument, which doesn't even give a keep reason beyond you seem to mistakenly think it was done in a bad manner and like it. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It still looks very suspicious. Everything seemed to have been designed to let it slip by without anyone noticing and made it difficult to object. Just putting "add missing tag" for an AFD? Give me a break. I had to troll back and forward through the history to find when the AFD was made before I could even find this page, linked to the date. That removed any initial assumption of good will. What do you mean by "series already has a List of Primeval characters"? Are you suggesting all the beasts should be put there? Doesn't seem appropriate. And my other reasons for "Keep" have been expressed well enough by others, above and in the previous AFD, so I will just add my vote. Barsoomian (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Extend AfD period I am a disinterested party to the contents of the article, but I find the discussion about timing and flagging to be of interest. How the AfD was done, and its timing, are not directly relevant to the suitability of the end-product article. However, adding another 7 days to this discussion should be acceptable to both sides, and put an end to the potential for incivility.DaveCW (talk) 05:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is really not a useful suggestion. He obviously found the AfD fairly quickly, and it was easily findable by looking on the AfD log. At most, extending it 4 days because that's how long it took anyone to notice the link was broken is all that would be needed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not "easily". It took 10 minutes screwing around, no thanks to you. Not everyone is as familiar as you with the "AFD log" and how it works. And who knows how many people gave up on the dead link you made supposedly to this page.Barsoomian (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 18:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No more or less worthy of inclusion than List of Doctor Who creatures and aliens. More "encyclopedic" perhaps since most of these creatures are closely based on known real animals, whose entries are cross-referenced when possible. Since many creatures appear in more than one episode, a reference amalgamating these appearances and background on the real creatures that they are based on is a useful reference; and inevitably pages for individual creatures will keep being recreated if the list page is deleted. Barsoomian (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Struck as this editor has already stated keep before. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You complained I didn't explain my reasoning before, so I expanded on it. I'm sure they can count unique votes without your help. Barsoomian (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Helps keep the kiddies off the scientific articles describing the animals this series is based upon. ;) More seriously, it looks like there are references, so someone has tried to keep the article in halfway decent shape. No reason to delete something someone found useful enough to add this many citations to. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is the proper way to handle such lists, and notability has not somehow evaporated in the two years since the last "keep". It has not been abandoned since then, receiving some care and attention. What is prudent is to encourage more, not delete. Further, "characters" and "creatures" are not the same, and the implied merging of these listed creatures into the list of Primeval characters would A) woefully overburden List of Primeval characters, and B) most certainly invite the later deletion of the creatures from the character list because they are not characters. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A useful list for those seeking information on a notable subject. Dream Focus 21:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete A7 Jac16888Talk 23:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decing

edit
Decing (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)

According to the WHOIS data, this article was created just five days after the website that it describes. The service or its software may (or may not) be an interesting, novel idea, but this website does not seem to have received enough public attention yet to be considered encyclopedically notable. No references (cf. WP:GNG), basic facts missing (such as owners, seat, business models). The creator's user name suggests a conflict of interest. HaeB (talk) 18:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. That the station exists is not evidence of it meeting notability requirements. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sting FM

edit
Sting FM (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)

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this radio station. Joe Chill (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This IS a station in Birmingham UK. As the article states it is only for Birmingham, UK. It does not broadcats online and it has limited range, even people in Birmingham can have difficulty is receiving it. Therefore there will be many people who have not heard of it. However there is a link to support the information contained which proves the article contains valid facts and therefore should not be deleted. --Cexycy (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - can you explain Sting FM's notability, as currently it appears to fail WP:N? The link appears to be dead. Rapido (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I have updated the article to link to its current URL. As I have said with other pirate radio stations, how can I prove they exist? Have you ever read up on numbers stations? They don't officially exist yet there are articles on them. This is because all pirate or numbers stations don't "officially" exist but really they do, if you get what I mean. If you read the URL now, this should help support the article and I hope you understand my point on keeping the article and a few others which you have already queried. --Cexycy (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as article fails to cross verifiability and notability thresholds due to lack of independent reliable sources. That a website exists for this admittedly criminal activity does nothing to prove that there is an actual pirate station nor that it has any notability outside the heads of its involved persons. WP has plenty of articles on notable pirate radio stations but, based on the lack of third-party coverage, this one does not make the grade. - Dravecky (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As I have said before this station does exist and I think it is very notable that an unlicenced radio station has been broadcasting for over 10 years and not suffered any legal action, despite broadcasting 24 hours a day. Most pirate stations need to shut down so they can move the equipment to another place to stop the police tracing them. I have already asked, how am I supposed to prove this exists, unless you visit Birmingham, UK with a radio and tune in to 107.5 FM? I can say that I live in Birmingham and this is how I know about it. I also knwo the signal is quite week, hence this mention in the article. I also said the numbers stations and other Pirates dont officially exist however there are articles on them. What makes this article so special it has to be deleted? I have done a few google searches and there are minimal mentions elsewhere. Unless you can prove this station does not exist it would be unfair to delete the article. --Cexycy (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 18:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I do see sufficient sources to verify the existence of this station. Is there any notability guide for pirate stations? I know in the U.S., any FCC licensed station seems to be deemed notable. In britian, though, i understand there are many pirate stations of varying importance.--Milowent (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Yes there are many pirate stations, however this has more to do with the fact our government has neither the enforcement capability, nor the penalties to deal with such activity, rather than any question of "importance" (unless you count re-broadcasting a rumour as important). Rapido (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There is evidence it exits and the time they have been on air makes them notable. It's lightweight and would benefit from more content but isn't just a puff piece - so it merits entry. 80.177.5.122 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete I've looked at all the sources, including those added by Cexycy, and none of them contain really significant coverage about the station itself. They're mostly about the rape incident, with the station mentioned almost in passing as one of the venues (and not even the first) on which it was spread. I therefore don't think they confer notability. Olaf Davis (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Olaf Davis, we require non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. Extra emphasis on the non-trivial part in this case. JBsupreme (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It bears mentioning that a sister AfD to this one resulted in a keep. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot 92 (pirate radio station).--Milowent (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Not really a "sister AFD", I just happened to nominate this one three days apart from the other one. Just because the other one resulted in a keep has no bearing on this AFD. Rapido (talk) 23:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The outcomes of similar AfDs should always have bearing. By "sister AfD" i was referring to the fact that both were involved in that one rumour event.--Milowent (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Even if we accept the notion that outcomes of similar AfDs should have bearing it needs to be established that they are similar. Reading the two they do not seem very similar to me: the evidence of notability in that case was vastly better than in this one. Every case needs to be considered on its own merits. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With the exception of the post where Cexycy says "I've now added two references to the article..." all of the arguments for "keep" are based on reasons which have nothing to do with Wikipedia's policies, such as "it really does exist", and so have no relevance. As for the references, I have read them all, including the two that Cexycy added. One of the references given (this one) does not even mention Sting FM. The only relevance of this source is that it gives one quote from a person who it states is a DJ on Sting FM: giving a quote does not constitute substantial coverage even of the person who made it, let alone substantial coverage of the radio station. Other sources give a little more mention, but only to report that Sting FM reported a particular news event: this is minimal coverage of Sting FM. There is no conceivable way that this can be considered as adding up to notability by Wikipedia standards. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was I'm not aware of any policy or guidelines that says notability for Jewish academinics is different to the general standard but there is undoubtedly some coverage out there. The question really is whether there is enough and I see two obituaries in local papers and an op-ed. Much of the keep arguing is not based on policy grounded reasons so the overal outcome should be delete. However, given the possibility of systemic bias I'm going to exercise discretion and incubate this in the hope that a bit more work with make the passing of the N hurdle a little more obvious Its now at Wikipedia:Article_Incubator/Yosef_Babad_(Hebrew_Theological_College) Spartaz Humbug! 16:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yosef Babad (HTC)

edit
Yosef Babad (HTC) (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 assertion of notability Kittybrewster ☎ 11:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This man was dean of students at a college for over 30 years. He guided the institution during that time, and had hundreds if not thousands of students. Isn't that notable in itself? Isn't it important for his students to understand his backround so that they can follow in his footsteps?? What is your definition of notable? wizir01 ☎ 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Per Rabbi Chaim Twerski, Dr. Babad wrote plenty of articles, and a book as well. Please give us time to collect this information and then you will see for yourself his noteworthiness. wizir01 ☎ 24 December 2009 (UTC)

He isn't a dean of thousands of students, and where is any of this written in policy? Abductive (reasoning) 18:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He isn't because he's dead. But before he died, thousands of students were under his deanship (albeit not at the same time) because he was a Dean of Students for 40 years. Although this is not a per se claim to notability, being in the position that he was made him an important and notable part of the Chicago Jewish community (one of the largest Jewish communities in the world) This is supported by this source. I have access to the entire article and have included some content to article that can not be viewed by the free version. All this is notwithstanding his other claims to notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 18:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Chicago Sun-Times obituary. It was written by a columnist for the paper, not family-paid. I have access to the entire article and can email it to you if you wish.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and the other half is not. Most theological schools are small in size. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And consequently less notability to rub off on the subject. Abductive (reasoning) 05:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
half the students at high-school level. Not true. It's a college, not a highschool.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter, he's a functionary with no particular claim of notability. Abductive (reasoning) 18:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He's a scholar, author, professor, rabbi, communal leader, activist, and functionary. The particular claims to notability are coverage in reliable sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources in the article are an obituary, a extremely short mention in a book, and an editorial. Now, DGG might say that an obit in the NYT is prima facie evidence of notability, but I ask, "why wasn't his death noticed in a non-Chicago newspaper?" Abductive (reasoning) 18:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being profiled in an op-ed versus a regular article is irrelevant for notability purposes. So his death was noticed in at least two large newspapers, one in Chicago and one in Israel. These two by their very selves sufficient to satisfy the notability requirements. This bio has to be viewed in its correct context. Those notable within the Orthodox Jewish community receive most of their coverage in Orthodox Jewish publications, most of which are unavailable on-line. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I disagree that he was profiled in the editorial, I disagree that his death was noticed in two large newspapers, I disagree that that would satisfy the notability requirement, I disagree that the Orthodox Jewish community are mostly offline, and I disagree that we have to accept articles on people who do not achieve notability because they are largely offline. Abductive (reasoning) 19:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's all fine, but I'm not really sure who exactly you're disagreeing with when you say that you "disagree that we have to accept articles on people who do not achieve notability because they are largely offline." Nobody at this afd claimed to the contrary. You may have misunderstood my previous statement or you may be unfamiliar with WP-policy that allows for off-line sources.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But we have no evidence of offline sources. Abductive (reasoning) 19:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Off-line sources are inherently unsupported by evidence. That's where WP:AGF comes in.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My viewpoint is that this article was created as a memorial, and the man didn't do anything encyclopedic.He did his duty at his institution, and that's it. Most people have jobs, and in the US and Britain at least, get some mention in newspapers if they live long enough. Pick a first name and last name at random, and I'll bet you hit on a percentage that would bring the number of Wikipedia articles to around 100,000,000. For example, I just made up the string "Ralph Stockton", which has no hits on Wikipedia. But, check out Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Abductive (reasoning) 19:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably imagining him as the Dean of Students of the college that you attended, who was unnotable person. Just like the dean of students at my college. However, as indicated by the coverage in sources, he was more then that. He was a notable person in the Jewish community, for a variety of reasons, one of which was his longetivity at an important religious institution. His position as dean of students was not like a regular dean of students, who are just doing their 9-5 job, but do not create a real connection to any society. A position like Dean of Students in the Orthodox Jewish community means that this person is an important leader of the Orthodox Jewish community. You obviously don't have to accept my anthropological discourse. I'm only to trying to explain how this person came to be seen as notable despite spending most of his career at a position that usually does not establish notability.
As for your point regarding random person's name, you're incorrect. The name that you chose as an example is a common generic name whose ghits include hundreds of different people. A better example may be a name such as Ralph Frockton, who gets far less ghits. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. Yosef Babad is very uncommon Jewish name. Indeed, all the ghtis either refer to him or ancestor. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point there was that a Ralph Stockton has an obituary in a major daily. Abductive (reasoning) 20:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim of Deans of Students in the Orthodox Jewish community being somehow more notable is special pleading. What about a Black Dean of Students at a HBCU? Sure, that means something in the local community, but if all he or she did was be a dean of students, what is the encyclopedic value? Abductive (reasoning) 20:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a special pleading. He's notable because he has received substantial coverage. My "claims" are only to facilitate your understanding on how its possible that he was considered notable despite having - as seen from the normal Western cultural prism - a position that is not usually associated with notability. As to your comparison to a Black Dean of Students at a HBCU, you can't really compare a community based on race to a community based on religion. There's a far greater sense of community in the latter then the former. That aside, if there's a Black Dean of Students that is notable, all the power to his Wikipedia article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His coverage is not substantial. Abductive (reasoning) 20:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. Actually I just found another source, [12] an article in the Chicago Tribune. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Shuki (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough here to pass WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 02:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There seem to be several sources that point out his notability in the community of American Orthodox Jewry. Just because the community of interest isn't all that wide, doesn't mean we should automatically exclude it. Ask yourself if the Project is weaker or richer because of this addition. I say it is richer, and the article should be given some breathing room, allowing the editors time to find more sources. Stellarkid (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jaag and others, who voted to keep.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep wizir01 I added some more information about his scholarly work. I haven't yet had a chance to go to the library and get the names and dates. I really don't understand why this article was marked for deletion so quickly after I created it; it takes time to gather the information about noteworthy figures. I consider this a collaborative endeavor. I am rather new to Wikipedia, and it seems to be a very unfriendly place if you don't have all your facts online immediately. What is motivating you to delete stuff like this so quickly? —Preceding undated comment added 04:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC).

wizir01 Concerning the school: It is the school that sponsored major rabbinical figures like Joseph Soloveitchik and Dovid Lifshitz to come to America. Some of the greatest leaders in the Jewish world went to the school; see the article on Hebrew Theological College for more info. It may be relatively small, but its impact is high in the Orthodox Jewish world. (talk) 8 January 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 04:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted as blatant vandalism, blatant hoax and for sockpuppetry

The Merfish

edit
The Merfish (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)

{{Hoax}} tag added to article nearly a week ago with no attempt made to delete article or refute hoax claim. Quick search only turns up hits related to "Merfish" as a surname. Two of the three sources given do not directly mention the topic. —KuyaBriBriTalk 05:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The concept is real, but not the name. No article is possible until a name is given, in a WP:Reliable source of course.Northwestgnome (talk) 05:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteRedirect to Mermaid I was the editor who tagged the article last week. Agree with all the comments above. It just didn't feel right, but I thought I'd give the originator a chance to prove that it was called a Merfish. The Harold Holt link rang the most alarm bells for me, hence I removed that section a couple of days ago. The-Pope (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if the concept is real and notable, then it presumably has a conventional name. If not "merfish", what is it? The most pressing question here is: is this is a notable concept? The name isn't so important, because we can simply rename the page. Everyking (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We think the concept is real, but we don't know if it is notable. Searching for a name we don't know is difficult. There probably should be a mention of it at Mermaid, so unless someone can provide evidence of independent notabilty, I've changed my opinion to redirect to there.The-Pope (talk) 05:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Definitely. The three sources are: 1.a surrealist painting which takes advantage of the absurdity and non-existence of not only the creature, but the concept itself. 2. An album cover that faintly resembles a "merfish", and 3. a book that never even uses the phrase. Clearly, this is a hoax. Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 01:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete-This page should not be deleted. The concept is not under question and clearly supported as it is the subject of various pieces of artwork. It is clearly a defined mythological creature. The entry clearly requires additional support for the verification of the name and claims made. In support of the author’s classification of the creature as a merfish, we can reference “Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology & Legend” by Funk & Wagnall. It is also reference on a Wellesley College page on Mythology: http://www.wellesley.edu/Psychology/Cheek/Narrative/myth.html. --Gregory83267 (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, where did the painting of the "howling merfish" come from? Everyking (talk) 07:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to mermaid. The page referenced above mentions the word "merfish" as another word for "mermaid", not the supposed mythological creature this article describes.Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 18:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 16:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MyAnimeList

edit
AfDs for this article:
MyAnimeList (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)

Recreation of a previously deleted article. The subject has not received significant coverage by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. What third party coverage it has received is trivial and based on a press release when the website was purchased by another company. A matter that has no changed since the last AfD. Continues to fail WP:WEB and WP:N The article has had some serious WP:COI as it was created, recreated, and then re-recreated by someone affiliated with the website, Kei-clone. —Farix (t | c) 03:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- —Farix (t | c) 03:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the article has only been deleted and recreated once, not twice. Anyway, the Google Scholar link at the top of this AfD returns one hit [14], which has significant coverage of MyAnimeList. However, since the article in question looks like it is hosted at the author's personal website, it isn't clear to me if it is actually a reliable source (I would have thought everything in Google Scholar was a reliable source, but I don't really know). Some searching indicates that it was presented at a conference at a university in Macedonia [15], but I don't know whether or not that makes it a reliable source. Also, the article cites Wikipedia as a major source for its information for some parts of the article, which could be a problem even if it is a reliable source, though it looked to me that the information it was taking from Wikipedia wasn't for the part of the article on MyAnimeList. Calathan (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, everything on Google Scholar is not a reliable source, attestable by the fact that my personal writings from my personal website also appear there :-P Like most of Google's stuff, it doesn't really give info on how it decides what to index there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my impression was that this article wasn't a reliable source, since I can't find any explanation of why this person would be considered an expert on otaku culture (or any subject for that matter), other than that he was invited to speak at this conference. I'm going to say delete, as I don't think there is significant, reliable coverage of MyAnimeList. Calathan (talk) 05:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MediaPost.com article is an elaboration of a press release, but one article isn't significant coverage. The "academic paper" appears have been someone's term paper as there is no evidence of being published in an academic journal, and is therefore not reliable. The SeekJapan's "Best of the Web" doesn't appear to be a well-known award and doesn't fullfill WP:WEB #2 (which is the only thing left). And finally, Alexa rankings have never taken as an indicator of notability. Popularity is not the same as notability. —Farix (t | c) 20:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MediaPost article is not just a press release; there are two of those linked from the article, and this is much more in-depth, including discussion with the CEO of the company which purchased the site. The paper was presented at an international symposium and is very unlikely be simply a term paper. Term papers are not generally (if ever) presented at international academic symposia. As for whether the proceedings of the symposium were collected into a published volume, I can't say, but papers presented at a symposium have to be submitted and approved ahead of time (I've helped run an international academic symposium for the last 20 years), so not just anyone can pop up and present at one. They have to be vetted ahead of time, so it would qualify as a reliable source regardless of whether it was subsequently published in a proceedings volume or another academic journal. The award and the Alexa ranking were just mentioned as asides (even though an Alexa ranking that high is likely going to indicate notability to some extent as sites don't become that popular without some notice by the press). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 18:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not the absolute least notable website ever to show up at AFD, but I'm not convinced it passes WP:WEB, and the recurrent COI/SPAM issues don't exactly help. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its Alexa rankings does hint at its notability. It has over 1.3 million hits when I search for its name on Google. That many people talking about it, and Alexa proving that massive number of people regularly go to it, make the website quite notable. Over 200,000 people have used their forum! I don't care what the constantly changing suggested guidelines say, since they were passed by a very small number of people, without the vast majority of Wikipedia editors ever noticing. Wikipedia is not a set of rules, you suppose to use common sense, that a founding principle. WP:IAR A website should be considered notable if a hell of a lot of people use it. Dream Focus 07:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if you search for "myanimelist -site:myanimelist.net" (in other words, where "myanimelist" is mentioned on other websites, not on myanimelist.net itself) on Google, the hits drop by nearly 70%. "200,000" is the number of signed people once claimed by that website itself, unverified by external sources, and even that website no longer lists stats. Like Farix said, the number of users doesn't make a website notable, even if it is "a hell of a lot." 1-54-24 (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, google hits and forum users do not count, and IAR is not some sort of magical wildcard. Try using your own common sense instead of suggesting reasons to keep that you know hold no weight to them in AFD. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some say the number of sales a bestselling book doesn't make it notable, and it should be deleted, but usually COMMON SENSE rules out over the suggested guidelines. See [17] for a good example of that. Some insist that even if a manga series has 15 million copies in print [18]] it isn't notable if you get no reviews and should be deleted, while others of course have sense to disagree. Websites are notable by the number of people that use them, not just because a couple of reviewers somewhere decided to mention them for whatever reason. The opinions of the millions who read something, is far more important than the opinions of a small number of people that review them. This bit of what I would consider common sense, does have weight in many AFDs, far more than the suggested guidelines for notability(suggested, because they are not binding, only suggestions on how to do things). Dream Focus 06:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's remember that we're not talking about the "opinions of the millions" in this case, but a claimed but unverified "200,000." 1-54-24 (talk) 13:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reiterating a point from the previous AfD that seems to have been forgotten here (can't blame anyone really, previous AfD was full of tl;dr), but please be careful not to reduce the significance of the Best of the Web award, as it is not only an award by a 20 year old magazine, but it also contains an accompanying article that independently provides non-trivial coverage of MyAnimeList as one of its subjects. So even if a 20 year old magazine published both on and offline doesn't fulfill WP:WEB #2, it clearly fits WP:WEB #1. So to recap, for WP:WEB you have:
  • Coverage from a reliable magazine with editorial review
  • Media coverage that is not a mere press release
  • A presenation covering this subject that was presented at an International Conference hosted by New York University at Skopje, an event I'd find hard to believe would present papers not vetted by a scholarly community.

Will withhold my vote due to COI so it won't count anyway, but please take the above into consideration Kei-clone (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This " Best of the Web" listing keeps getting described here as an "award," except the article never calls it an award, even for the other websites listed (unless "takes the cake for nerdiest thing ever conceived" counts). Magazines do regular "Best such-and-such Websites" listings, but that doesn't make them awards. A paragraph, albeit entertainingly written, seems to fall under "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site" that is one of WP:WEB #1's exceptions. 1-54-24 (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No wonder I couldn't find much information about New York University Skopje, the supposed site of the scholarly presentation. The website says it was only registered as a university in Macdeonia in 2005. Despite the name, it has nothing to do with New York University in New York. Bizarrely, there is a University of New York in Skopje that says it opened in 2005 in the same city. It's not related to the University of New York in New York either. Even more bizarrely, both New York University Skopje and University of New York in Skopje have the same phone number, (+38) 9220 34600.
University of New York in Skopje claims to offer an accredited degree with State University of New York (but not the University of New York). But the State University of New York's website doesn't mention "University of New York in Skopje" or "New York University Skopje." What is going on? 1-54-24 (talk) 07:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. There is no deletion nomination, and the only deletion argument is based on IAR and mistakenly believing this person to be alive. Anyone actually wishing to nominate this article for deletion may do so without prejudice. Fences&Windows 23:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Vincenza

edit
Sister Vincenza (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)

Keep, Per a discussion found here [[19]] Unfortunately there are those here that do not think this lady should have her own page. As the creator I believe she is mentioned in enough third party sources and is central enough in the murder conspiracy theories to warrant her own article. in this case I liken her to Monica Lewinsky. Monica's only real notability is sucking clinton's cock. Granted this is much more graphic then what Sister Vincenza did just delivering coffee, however the excuse was it was unseemly for a woman to be in the papal apartments early in the morning as the reason for giving a different story. Either way both have resulted in media coverage trough books, newspapers and spoken word. As such I believe she does pass notability requirements, I understand others have felt differently so I am open to a community deletion discussion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – The article is well referenced – witten in a NPOV style and informative. Conspiacy??? That I believe, is left to an individual’s own mind-set. As to the article itself, meets all the criteria for inclusion. JAAGTalk 18:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question – I am confused why you brought this article to AFD? You are the creator of the piece, by the way nice job – you go through the nomination process to have the article AFD – than you write a strong Keep opinion. Am I missing something. JAAGTalk 19:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To explain, article was discussed at the BLPN here and there was some discussion as regards notability and the creator of the article quite decently in the circumstance nominated the article himself, he has also added some citations and comments to the article to improve it. Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frequently I nominate articles for deletion, I dislike seing a author who caares for his work perform useless work if in the end it is deleted anyways.. I figured I'd save all of us time, myself included by taking it a discussion for deletion. It appeared ot be headed that way so to avoid a person having to prod it, me remove it. Someone nominate it for AFd and I have to respond anyways....Figured it save time....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My apologies, but I didn’t realize AFD was an edit review procedure. I had assumed, reading the policy and guidelines, that the only reason we brought an article here was with a firm belief that an article should be deleted. If I am mistaken in my interpretation, of the current policies and guidelines, my apologies. JAAGTalk 22:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That arguement could've held weight....if she was still alive. She died in 1984, Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I still think the article is kind of lame. Why not just have one on the theories? Borock (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
there is one on the Theories. However if you do a search [[20]] and [[21]]. This one person is actually one of the main reasons there is theories to begin with. Consider that Monica Lewinski (other then downing a presidential load, what has she done?) and Lewinsky scandal is notable because of the widespread coverage she recieved after the President lied....This is the same thing, if all she did was find the pope dead, I agree non notable. however this wasn't the case. the Vatican lied about her involvement. this has resulted in 30 yeArs of coverage and speculation, Due to one person. This is why Sister Vincenza and the existing conspiracy should exist in tandem. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then one article should do it. If all that's known about her is conspiracy theories then she probably shouldn't have an article since readers would be expecting solid information on her as a person. Much more is known about Ms Lewinsky.Borock (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lack of general notability and inclusion guidance at WP:CORP NJA (t/c) 08:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Allied Wireless

edit
Allied Wireless (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 proposed future telecommunications company with no demonstration of notability — prod removed by author. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but this article is. Nyttend (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16 December 2009

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as this article makes no claim to notability in accordance with WP:CORP, nor does it cite any sources in support of such a claim. Wikipedia is not a barebones business directory, and there is no significant coverage for this company that would suggest an encyclopedic article can be written about it at this time. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without encyclopedic value. $200,000,000 isn't very much money, and this is a shell corporation designed to accomplish a specific task. Abductive (reasoning) 22:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tamil recipients of the Padma Bhushan

edit
List of Tamil recipients of the Padma Bhushan (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 Padma Bhushan article contains a comprehensive list of all the Padma Bhushan awardees. The information in this article is hence redundant. Jovianeye (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator's rationale. same as the padmashri list. The main awards articles have state information in a sortable format. This article is redundant--Sodabottle (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the recipient's state is Tamil Nadu the info is already on the main page and if the recipient is otherwise a member of the ethnic group then his/her article suffices for the info and no seperate list on this limited criterion is necessary. Hekerui (talk) 01:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. NJA (t/c) 08:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jen Stills

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

I don't think this studio(?) musician passes WP:MUSIC. Deprodded. Abductive (reasoning) 06:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - This one's tough, especially under WP:MUSICBIO where maybe her work as a songwriter passes criterion #10 (her appearances on notable soundtracks). Elsewhere in the music notability guidelines she has more support at WP:COMPOSER, particularly criterion #1 as more notable artists have used some of her works. In general, third party sources describing some of her songs can be found but they're quite rare. Her situation might improve if her supposed 2009 album appears and gains notice. This article is premature at worst, and maybe notability will become apparent in the future. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As an individual artist, she hasn't really hasn't reached notability. If you insist on keeping the title as a possible search term, then redirect it to the article about the soundtrack. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ProperLyrics

edit
ProperLyrics (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)

According to the article this is one of the most highly rated artists on the british rap scene but I'm finding no decent sources on google, google books or google scholor so I'm unable to avoid the conclusion that this person is non-notable and doesn't meet our inclusion criteria, Spartaz Humbug! 07:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ive reached same conclusions as SPartaz, i have tried to find information on him other than self published stuff like his myspace page and his vids on youtube- no luck. I thought i'd found something when i came across one of his vids on an NME site, but the page contained the disclaimer "DISCLAIMER: The video content provided on this page is generated by YouTube and consequently features user-generated content." --Brunk500 (talk) 12:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. General essay-like article, that even if improved would still be an article where the information could be condensed with the summarised version added to already existent and relevant articles on Wikipedia. NJA (t/c) 08:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colorado in-state tuition

edit
Colorado in-state tuition (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)

Unencyclopedic POV essay. KuyaBriBriTalk 15:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Rogerson

edit
Shaun Rogerson (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 contestant on a UK talent show who has not yet gained independent notability - fails to meet WP:MUSIC because he was not placed in a talent contest (only reached the final 24), has not had a hit album, or two or more releases on a major label (one non-hit release on a minor label) and fails to meet WP:GNG because all coverage is both minor (local news coverage) and related to the X Factor (WP:1E). According to Wikipedia policy the article should therefore be deleted. I42 (talk) 17:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 16:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FarPoint Spread

edit
FarPoint Spread (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, speedy removed by SPA who has admitted COI with the software author in an edit summary WuhWuzDat 19:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article to remove any non-encyclopedic content and to change it to a neutral point of view. (As I mentioned elsewhere, I used Microsoft Excel and Crystal Reports as my guides.) I didn't edit for notability, as I didn't find this page until just now, but I had already realized that the article was short of non-related and non-sales type references, and intend to begin researching such references right now. I also realized that after I turned all the comma-delimited lists of features into bulleted lists of features, the article looks kind of list-heavy. I will also try to remedy that when I learn more about the software. Thank you for your work on behalf of the project. I gain more respect for it the more I read, and will try my best to follow the guidelines. Kimnathans (talk) 21:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added some external references to the article. Kimnathans (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything else that could be done to improve this article? Kimnathans (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some book citations to the article. Would it be best to delete some of the primary source press releases? Thanks! Kimnathans (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The guidelines for inclusion don't include the quality of the product; only the nature of the coverage it has generated. This product has generated notice in WP:RS and therefore has met the criteria for inclusion. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 04:04, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources offered that may be independent enough do not have a broad enough readership to really confer notability. Even if coverage in a "VSj" website or "Software Development Times" is in fact independent, those sites are addressed exclusively to software development communities and as such no more able to confer notability than your hometown newspaper. The remaining "references" are to routine corporate announcements. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see anything in WP:N that indicates that the independent sources need to have broad readership. Software topics are going to be covered by software journals that have readership limited to software developers, in the same way that physics topics will be covered in physics journals that have limited readership (limited to physicists). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 00:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Physics topics, though, don't raise the issues of spam, commercial conflict of interest, and product placement that software articles do. This is why more should be required. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Waismann Method

edit
Waismann Method (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 reputable sources are given in the article, and Google Scholar does not show any publications describing this method. We should not have articles about medical treatments that lack scholarly sources. Looie496 (talk) 17:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Realest Shit I Never Wrote PT.2

edit
The Realest Shit I Never Wrote PT.2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this mixtape. Joe Chill (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. User:Slakr deleted this article under criterion G4, recreation of previously-deleted material. —C.Fred (talk) 23:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fortitude HTTP

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

I can't find significant coverage of this software in secondary sources that aren't the usual download catalogs. The Softpedia link is not a review. Pcap ping 16:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there was another AfD three months ago, and this was recreated apparently with the same contents, a speedy delete seems in order. Pcap ping 16:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. I took account of the improved sourcing Spartaz Humbug! 16:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MassiveGood

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

Contested prod. Article is about a project with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Searches only turn up press releases and marketing write-ups. TNXMan 17:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the organization initiative has not started, yet. While they are not fully operational now, they do exist. The notability standards are intended to weed out the organizations things that do not have significant mentions in major references. This one definitely does. The reason that the organization is being covered in the media in reliable sources now is because of the involved parent organizations, the cause, and unique nature of the work it will do. I can only definitively speak for myself, but I was interested in reading about the organization and I think that other people will be, too. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Flo. MassiveGood is not an organisation, it is a fundraising project by the Millennium Foundation. I cited WP:ORG as the nearest appropriate guideline, however, WP:EVENT appears to have gained consensus as a guideline, and that is a more appropriate guideline to consult. A considered reading of that guideline reveals that the wider consensus of the community is that articles such as this one are thought to be indiscriminate pieces of information. SilkTork *YES! 15:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I used the word "initiative" in my initial remarks and that would have been a better choice of words here, too. But taking the discussion in that direction of discussing there exact structure causes the problem of "not being able to see the forest for the trees". We know that there are significant mentions in reliable sources so we can get information from them. We don't need complex alternative methods to determine notability since we can rely on the basic way of doing it. :-) FloNight♥♥♥♥ 13:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone. As you can see from my user name, I'm working for the Millennium Foundation so I'm one of the people behind MASSIVEGOOD. It's good to see such a lively discussion, it helped us understand a lot about Wikipedia and its philosophy. Although we are not the most objective people on this matter, we truly believe that MASSIVEGOOD will become very important, it actually already is in the field of global health, and deserves to be on Wikipedia. MASSIVEGOOD is in operation, it was launched in September 2009, it is already raising money but it will only be available to the general public from the end of this month. That is why we think MASSIVEGOOD qualify to appear on Wikipedia but we would like it to fully follow the rules established by the community. We were thinking about editing the page, only talking about the official launch of MASSIVEGOOD at the UN back in September (where we had press coverage from the NYT, Time... and I’m not talking about press releases ;-)) with a few words about what MASSIVEGOOD is all about and when it is due to be launched. Obviously, as non-experts, we would highly appreciate your input on this. Thanks again for your help guys! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Millenniumfoundation (talk • contribs) 18:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let us know when you are in the top twenty fund raisers. --Bejnar (talk) 03:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Overall, concerns about general notability inclusion guidance and also reliable sources. NJA (t/c) 07:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Green (author)

edit
Mark Green (author) (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 do not believe this subject passes the notability standard. I cannot find any reviews of the book in any newspapers or magazines (not via a Google News search anyway), and I don't believe the author is notable as a military person, a doctor, or a business man. I'll gladly stand corrected, but I just don't see any solid evidence of notability. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other Side (album)

edit
Other Side (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)

Does not meet WP:NALBUMS or WP:GNG, unreleased album that was to be released over two years ago, can find no information other than from blogs, MySpace, and Wikipedia mirrors J04n(talk page) 15:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Good Earth

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

I can't find significant coverage for this unreleased album. Joe Chill (talk) 15:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question/Comment: The article says that the album was mentioned in Lillian Roxon's Rock Encyclopedia, a book that that really exists, by a notable rock journalist, but is apparently out of print. If whoever added the mention of that book to the article could add a reference to a page number, would that be sufficient for notability? There would be some historical interest behind an unreleased Sonny & Cher album, but Ms. Roxon is possibly the only person who ever knew anything about it, given the shortage of sources. Tellingly, the album is not mentioned as a historical item of interest in the Sonny & Cher article. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From the "snippet view" at Google Books (which is all I have access to, so if anyone has the book please correct me if I'm missing something), it seems that the mention comes as some part of a listing within Sonny and Cher's discography. I agree that the book would be considered a reliable source; however, absent any additional material to at least satisfy WP:GNG, I think it falls short of meeting WP:NALBUMS.  Gongshow Talk 07:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the snippet, I'm not sure now if it wasn't released. Either way, listing it in a discography does not confer notability. J04n(talk page) 12:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. The clincher was when Hqb pointed out that this duplicates the content of Look-and-say sequence. If we assume bad faith, it's a blatant ripoff/hoax/otherwise vandalism (G3). If we assume good faith, then it's a duplicate topic, and the name is so unuseful that there's no point to redirect (A10). Either way, it's clear that there's no need for this article to continue to exist. —C.Fred (talk) 09:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory sequence

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

Lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Finding no mention of the article title or the person the article claims it was named for in Google Scholar, Books, or web searches. RadioFan (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus.

This discussion is interesting in that it does not focus on one of the standard reasons for deletion (notability, verifiability, etc.). Rather, editors disagree about whether such a categorization of people is at all appropriate or even possible. As usual, I begin with the rough headcount, which is 20 to 14 (41% to 59%) in favor of keeping. Even if a higher proportion of "keep" than "delete" opinions would be invalid for some reason, this would not provide us with the required consensus for deletion.

I must still examine, however, whether there is a "delete" argument that is so compelling that it mandates deletion regardless of consensus (e.g., a copyright violation). I do not find any such argument being made here.

Finally, I must examine whether the "delete" arguments are, in aggregate, so much more persuasive in the light of policies, guidelines and precedents than the "keep" arguments, that I would nonetheless be justified in finding a consensus for deletion. That is also not so:

  • Precedent is inconclusive; some similar categories and lists appear to have previously been kept; others deleted.
  • It has been pointed out that the lists may violate WP:SAL#Lists of people, which would require the inclusion of only people notable for being a former member of the religion, but if so, that can be addressed by editing rather than deletion.
  • One person thinks that such a categorization is WP:OR, but that issue has not been discussed further.
  • Many other "delete" opinions concern the broader perceived merits of such lists, often in terms such as "arbitrary and selective", "selective and unencyclopedic", "hard to see any positive purpose or need" or "never on the level, straightforward, and neutral". Whether or not one agrees with these assessments, they are not based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, or they address issues such as neutrality that can be corrected by editing rather than deletion.

For these reasons, these arguments do not outweigh the "keep" arguments, or at least not strongly enough for me to find a consensus for deletion.  Sandstein  07:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of former Jews

edit
List of former Jews (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 am nominating these articles for deletion since they seem to me to violate the spirit of several important WP policies. One is neutral point of view WP:NPOV since out of the millions of people in history who have changed or left their religion only a few will ever be listed here, and the ones listed seem to be so (in many cases) to push various points of view. Another is no fringe theories WP:Fringe since it is not at all established that a Jew who leaves his religion is a “former Jew” (most people, Jewish or not, would not say so), or that being a member of a church makes a person a Christian or leaving one a “former Christian”, and Muslims (if I understand correctly) do not consider a person who renounces Islam a “former Muslim” but a lapsed one. Another issue is with WP’s policies on living people WP:BLP. Not everyone on the lists is living but for those who are being listed could cause problems, which is one thing WP tries to avoid if possible. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages:[reply]

List of former Christians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of former Muslims (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • I don't see that these lists are inherently POV in nature. If some current entires are included to advocate some particular point of view then by all means remove them, but why delete the whole lists? It should be possible to restrict them to entries for which reliable sourcing supports inclusion. Likewise BLP is a reason to take extra care with the inclusion of living people but where sourcing does exist there's no reason not to include them. As for your other point, I wouldn't have thought it particularly controversial to say that someone who once professed belief in Christianity but no longer does is a 'former Christian'; likewise Muslims. Whether Muslims prefer the term 'lapsed' to 'former' is surely not the relevant question: what matters is whether general English useage and reliable sources use the term and I'm pretty sure they do. I'm on less certain ground with the other list since 'Jew' does not refer solely to religious persuasion, but your argument would seem to justify at the very most a rename to 'list of formerly religious Jews' or something similar. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and Close: You did read all the previous AfD discussions on these articles, right? If you did not, I suggest you read them now and then if your objections havent been dealt with there, keep the AfD otherwise withdraw it right away. I'm not going to bother responding to your arguments as they have all been dealt with in previous AfDs. Since you seem to not have investigated this fully, here's a good starting point for you: Lists of people by belief which links to atleast 20 different lists. You should look into nominating all of them. Your AfD isnt valid unless it does that. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominating all of them might be a good idea. I nominated these because they seemed the most "high profile."Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where would you find former AfDs? I know sometimes they are listed on the talk page but I didn't see any for these.Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1) Who says what list is high profile and whats not? Thats a subjective criteria. 2) Look again and this time a little bit more carefully: Talk:List of former Muslims. There were 3 AfD's for this page alone. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 17:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"High profile" = "easy targets" ;-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW I am smarter than the previous nominators.:-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – On the condition it is renamed “List of notable Jews who converted to other religions”. As it now stands, any individual who converts from Judaism would be included in the list. That is not only impracticable but would be unattainable to upkeep. If inclusion in the list requires that the individual already having gained notability by our current standards I see no problem. JAAGTalk 16:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These articles can never do more than scratch the surface, and no argument is ever made as to why such lists would ever be notable. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 17:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is never on the level, straightforward, and neutral. Its parameters are extremely poorly defined, and unfortunately that is taken advantage of. Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What Bus Stop said. Also, in regard to the "former Jew" in particular, Groucho Marx indicated there is no such thing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and close if a person has publicly stated that they no longer consider themselves of the jewish faith, and they meet WP notability, then they can be described that way, even if the jewish faith still claims them. and if there are more than 2 such people, a list is appropriate for these people. there is no violation that i can see of any WP policy for such a list, as long as it is well maintained (as all articles must be). saying that we cannot have a list of people because it either excludes nonnotable people or is too long, is simply absurd. WP is ONLY about notable subjects. and we have "dynamic list" tags to remind readers when lists are not complete, and may never be. the lists dont have to be notable, the individuals listed must be, and their conversion a matter of public record. the requirement for lists at WP is different than articles. we need such things as objective inclusion criteria, and they must either sourced or have articles for each item listed. they also cant be a random collection of facts. this list seems to meet all criteria for a good list at wp. im frankly baffled why this isnt patently obvious.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To SlimVirgin, Bustop and others who think these lists should be deleted: do you think all articles linked in Lists of people by belief should be deleted? Why should we delete a few and leave the rest? Anyone care to answer that question? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 18:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those kinds of lists smack of ethnicism. And this AFD is about a list of "former"-whatevers. Who decides that so-and-so is a "former"? And where does it stop? Former Zen-Buddhists? Former believers in the Church of Baseball? And as I said, there is no such thing as a "former Jew". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does Christianity or Islam have to do with ethnicism? Who decides that they are former? Reliable sources, surely - if we can say that Tony Blair is a Christian based on RS we can say that Richard Dawkins was one. As for Zen-Buddhists and Baseballists - show me some RSes discussing their apostates and I'll start up a list. Why not? Olaf Davis (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Baseball, so is it now 'ethnicistic' to call a person a Muslim or a Christian too? Category:Muslims. Who decides whether a person is a Muslim or not? Should we go then deleting the List of Muslims articles and its sub-articles too? Why not? Could you please apply your arguments to all the religion list articles and not have me do it for you? You've heard the case of Rifqa Bary, right? Are you going to say "there's no such as a former Muslim" too? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 02:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mercurywoodrose. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The names are unexplainable in this list, also if living people are to be included which they are one of the problems imo is that for example a person becomes a Buddhist, OK..we have the citation..harry has become a Buddhist, he was a Christian, but this doesn't make him an ex Christian unless we have a clear citation from him saying explicitly that he denounces the previous religion, taking a new religion does not reflect a guaranteed rejection of the previous one, so you need very strong citations to claim that john is an ex anything. Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There may be arguments about particular individuals on or not on the list; but presence on the list is clearly verifiable. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic cross-categorization of notability and former jewishness. Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists_of_people states that "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category". This is in keeping with the WP:NOTDIRECTORY prohibition of unencyclopedic cross-categorizations; in particular, it is unencyclopedic to have a list that crosscategorizes the set of people who are former jews with the set of people who are notable for an unrelated reason. Thus, only a list of former jews known for their conversion could be an appropriate topic for a list even in principle. This list does not satisfy that requirement in any way, as it consists mainly of people notable for any number of other reasons. Locke9k (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see the conflict, but I think that the problem might stand with the guideline itself. That is, if I were to arrive at a page called "List of Atheists", I would not expect to receive a presentation of individuals limited to those notable for their faith as opposed to a page whose content works best to reflect the title. I also question the suggestion for the inclusion of non-notable individuals when considered in light of the aforementioned guideline. This combination would seem to put an unnecessary gaping whole in the information provided. Then again, this probably isn't the place to argue over the validity of the guidelines.--C.Logan (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has received significant coverage in secondary WP:RS sources. It is possible and not difficult to find sources to make it a requirement that each entry on each list be properly sourced. Cirt (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The lists are equally notable and noteworthy to List of converts to Judaism, List of converts to Christianity and List of converts to Islam, which can be seen as the flip side of these lists. Since religious conversion is a legitimate encyclopedic topic, the list is not an unencyclopedic cross-categorization in the way that, say, List of Portugese ballerinas would be. As for the Groucho objection, I think that concern is addressed by the link to Who is a Jew? in the first paragraph of List of former Jews, but if that is inadequate a name change to List of former adherents of Judaism could help. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Ignoring the possibility that these lists are superfluous to their respective "Conversion to" lists, I would have to move towards keeping these articles. We have to remember that the outright deletion of information should not come as a result of agenda-pushing; rather, we should make more of an effort to neutralize the inevitable tampering by some editors (which so often comes with the emotional investment that religious topics tend to inspire). Stricter source-checking, and for the living, a requirement of self-identification, is needed. There should really be a more exclusive attitude toward the information presented. So far as the question of what defines an "ex"-anything, I feel that it would be wise to take more space in the article to explain the possibility of syncretism, and possibly concerning the intrinsic limitation of this style of article. I do not feel that there is enough of a case for deletion, but it might be good to consider the possibility of re-examining the purpose and style of these articles.--C.Logan (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All 3 Besides the mean spiritedness and potential problems for living people and their families already mentioned, these lists (and others on WP) try to reduce the complexity of human spritiuality, belief, or whatever to an entry on a list. For instance here is a quote from the first citation on List of former Christians (I earlier made some comments on its talk page as well), from an interview with Omar Sharif which is supposed to establish his atheism:
I have none that I can prove. I believe in everything and in nothing. I don’t disbelieve in anything. I mean everything is possible. As far as my brain tells me I don’t believe because I believe that God is justice. The first thing that I was taught at catechist, catechism was that God is justice and I don’t see justice in the world. I see terrible injustice. I saw my mother when on her deathbed, she just died four years ago, she was a great believer and I sat next to her fifteen days while she suffered terribly before she died and I saw what relief she got from believing, from calling the Virgin Mary, from calling Jesus Christ to her help. From calling Saint Anthony of Padua who was our Saint, favourite Saint. It relieved her pain and I use to think what shall I say on my deathbed or who shall I call for help? And I decided that I will call my mother for help. That’s what I’ll say, I’ll say “mother come and get me wherever you are”.

Sorry it's so long but I think it illustrates the problem with these lists. I also noticed on the List of former Muslims many people were minor criminals/terrorists, people not usually noted for their religious beliefs. Who cares if a criminal in prison adopts a new religion? (God cares, but He does not need WP to tell Him.) At least limit the lists to people noted for their faith, but prefer delete all.Steve Dufour (talk) 22:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • A question: would you for the same reason be against classification of people by their current religion? If not, what's the fundamental difference? That seems equally hard to me as this. Perhaps we can't definitively say that Sharif is or isn't Christian, but we can certainly do so for the Pope: the existence of difficult cases does not mean we should ignore the easy ones. Olaf Davis (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, the pope would obviously be an important person to read about in the study of Christianity. Not so a famous ax murderer who converted while in prison, unless of course he later became notable as a Christian. Also "converts to..." lists could take up the slack if "former..." lists were gotten rid of.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Reform Judaism considers any Jew who converts to another religion to be a former Jew. Best, A Sniper (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have to agree with A Sniper on this one. Reform Judaism makes a strong claim for a person who turns their back on the religion to be "former". This makes sense to me. Jim Steele (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well then maybe for the sake of clarity it should be stated somewhere — in the title, or in an introductory paragraph — that the criteria used for inclusion and exclusion are the criteria that are held by Reform Judaism. There is no sense in leaving the reader guessing what sort of guidelines are being followed. The standards of the article need to be articulated somewhere. Bus stop (talk) 00:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this is not Wiki-reform-judaism-opedia.Steve Dufour (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violates WP:NOR, what are "former Jews" EXACTLY since according to Judaism being Jewish is both a religion and an ethnicity. This is also directly similar to violations of Overcategorization: Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual preference and Overcategorization: Opinion about a question or issue. See also Wikipedia:Listcruft IZAK (talk) 04:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So could you explain your deletion reason there? —Preceding comment added 12:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC) to my talk page. Transferred here. Handschuh-talk to me 12:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not take AfD discussions onto user talk pages. WP:LISTCRUFT may not be policy, but WP:NOT is. These lists are massive and frankly, unencyclopaedic. What possible encyclopaedic use could there be for a list of all former jews/christians/muslims or any other religion? Handschuh-talk to me 12:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:Lists (which is a style guideline as opposed to this WP:Listcruft which is a disputed essay), Lists can have standalone articles when they get big enough. I'm not sure what your "these lists are massive" argument is about. And what possible encyclopaedic use could there be for all the other lists on Wikipedia? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there are other lists that you feel are not eligible for inclusion in the project, nominate them for deletion. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is no reason to keep this crap. Lists can have standalone pages if they warrant it, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This list and others like it violate that policy. Handschuh-talk to me 13:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give me one example of a list that is OK to you and I'll tell you the reasons why these lists dont violate policy. And no, these lists dont violate any policy. You have failed to point out exactly what policy these lists violate even though I've given you a link to WP:Lists. I've had enough of this "delete these list of religion thing" thing. To deal with this for once and for all, I will create something similiar to WP:Listcruft later to put a stop to this. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 13:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not failed to point to a policy that these lists violate. You have just failed to read it. WP:IINFO is violated. I'm not going to go through the project with you, list by list and tell you what is worthy of inclusion and what is not. I'm not the supreme arbiter of such things and I don't claim to be. The lists in question exist in violation of clear-cut policy as defined by a consensus of editors. Handschuh-talk to me 13:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Lists which is a direct style guideline related to lists holds precedence over WP:INFO and WP:NOT and whatever WP you're linking to. These lists are perfectly in line with WP:Lists. Please check that page out and tell me which policy these lists violate according to WP:Lists. I've already rebutted your objection of the lists being 'massive'. According to WP:Lists, when lists get massive, they actually get their own article. Could you now tell me why or how these lists violate WP:Lists? And no, there is also no consensus to delete these lists. Please dont make claims that are not true. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea where you're getting the idea from that a "direct style guideline" takes "precedence over WP:INFO"(which, by the way is not what I cited). Style guidelines, as the name suggests tell you how to format and present an article. Policies, like WP:IINFO, contain information about accepted standards that should normally be followed. Policy has been set by consensus. Your "rebuttal" to my objection to these massive and unmanagable lists is moot, since the point still stands that wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Handschuh-talk to me 14:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As requested earlier, please explain how these lists specifically violate WP:Lists. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They don't violate WP:L. I never claimed that they did. If they did, it would just be a matter of fixing up stylistic issues. These lists violate policy. Specifically, WP:IINFO. That is why the remedy is deletion; because they violate policy. Handschuh-talk to me 15:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In what way? There is an article titled Apostasy in Judaism and the list could relate to that, but be too long to fit the article. ("List of apostates from Judaism" might be better then)--T. Anthony (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bobby, no, I'm afraid you're wrong. I've WP:checked and these WP:specific lists do WP:not violate WP:INFO. Seriously, they do not. Please provide evidence of the specific violation of WP:INFO rather than just linking to the page and making unsupported generalized claims. As you're incorrectly alleging, these certain lists are not "indiscriminate collections of information". Why do you think they are? --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how I can be anymore specific than to point out that these lists are indiscriminate collections of information. They simply compile information about apostasy in Judasism without reference to whether or not that information is notable or relevant or has any encylcopaedic value to the topic at hand. In their current form they are incredibly vague with respect to exactly who falls into this arbitrary catagory (as others have detailed above). I don't see what evidence you could possibly expect me to present; you obviously know where the list is found. Anyway, I'm tired of this. I'm going to let the closing admin wade through this nonsense. Handschuh-talk to me 15:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)In my opinion, they don't violate policy. An encyclopedic use: if someone is looking for a notable person whose name they can't quite remember but whom they remember as having been in a particular religion or having converted, they can refer to the list. "Lists contain internally linked terms and thus in aggregate serve as natural tables of contents and indexes of Wikipedia. If users have some general idea of what they are looking for but do not know the specific terminology,..." (WP:LIST) People might just be interested to just read the list and add to their knowledge of names they recognize. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Handschuh, if you look at the lists and looked at the references you'll see they're all well-defined. If we cant be sure whether two certain people can be included in the list or not, that discussion belongs on the talk page of the list article. It doesnt mean we should delete the lists. Just because we're not sure where we should put a sofa in the room doesnt mean we just get rid of the room completely. If you look at List of former Muslims for example, that list is well-defined and well-referenced. In some cases there are multiple references. Nice talking to you too. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for the Jewish one. Possibly "People who converted from Judaism" or something less awkward if that's at all possible. The idea of "former Jews" is arguable as being Jewish can also be an ethnic or cultural identifier. I guess keep the others as long as they're restrained in the way required of lists. Meaning the people's former Christianity or former Islam needs to relate to their notability. Finally "Listcruft" is a bumper-sticker, it's not a good reason to do or not do anything. Lists have certain functions categories don't and on something like this I think lists are inherently better than categories because they can be sourced. (You put Category:Former Christians on a lesser-known individual who died before 1980 and it could stay there practically forever)--T. Anthony (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the term is a problem then rename it to "former", "lapsed", "secular", "converted" or whatever. // Liftarn (talk) 12:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The criteria used for inclusion or exclusion are never articulated. The more liberal end of the spectrum of legitimate Jewish thinking would guide the list to a different composition than would the more conservative end of the spectrum of legitimate Jewish thinking. Which criteria are being used to compile this list? Bus stop (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's OK. I think that in general on Wikipedia, we go by whether the person has self-identified as being in a given religion; so someone is stilled called a Jew on Wikipedia if they consider themselves to be a Jew, even if some other Jews don't consider them one because they're not following stricter practices. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coppertwig, no name is listed on List of former Jews because they are "not following stricter practices."
And if we "go by whether someone has self-identified as being in a given religion" then why isn't that articulated in the title or in an introductory paragraph?
Criteria have to be articulated otherwise a list like this would seem to be sloppy scholarship. Where are the criteria for what gets included and what gets excluded from a list such as this? Bus stop (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The criterion is clearly stated at the top of the list: "people of Jewish ethnicity and adherents of Judaism who have converted to another religion". Whether someone meets this criterion must be verifiable per WP:V. I was simply stating my understanding of what the usual WP:V criterion is for things like this, for example whether a category such as Category:Israeli Orthodox Jews can be added to a biography; it's not part of the criterion itself, but part of whether the inclusion of the person in the category has been sufficiently verified. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coppertwig, can you please tell me what you are you referring to by "not following stricter practices." Is that applicable to anything? Bus stop (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (1) That certain people are included on these lists because of particular editors' POV motivations is irrelevant, so long as it is reliably documented that such people are indeed former adherents of one of these religions, and so long as the lists reflect contributions by people of various P'sOV. In my experience with similar lists, particularly the List of nontheists, editors often add or delete people out of a POV motivation (some atheist editors like to add well-respected people and delete infamous people; while some anti-atheist/pro-theist editors like to add infamous people and delete well-respected people). Were the lists the exclusive product of one or the other of these camps, a deletion on NPOV grounds might be justified. But as long as editors with varied motivations contribute well-sourced material, and likewise base deletions on well-sourced material, the end result is a neutral list of verifiable information. (2) Fringe theories should indeed be avoided as a basis for such lists. However, I see no evidence that the idea that one may become a former (religious) Jew is a fringe view. There are documented cases of people renouncing their Judaism, or saying that they used to be a Jew. True, many regard someone born a Jew to always be a Jew, but that is a matter of ethnic and/or cultural identity, rather than of religious identity, which is what the former Jews list addresses. As another contributor to this discussion mentioned, a renaming of the list could address ethnic or cultural identity concerns with regards to the "former Jew" label. Something like "List of former adherents of Judaism" would leave it open as to whether those listed are or are not in some sense still Jewish. Whether a religious group regards someone who renounces their religion as a "former" adherent, or a "lapsed" adherent is something trumped by that person's own self-identity. If someone says they're an ex-Catholic, then WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BLP require that we identify them as such, even if the Catholic church does not regard them as an ex-Catholic, but as a lapsed Catholic. (3) WP:BLP concerns are best addressed by reliable sourcing of material, and from a quick survey of the nominated lists, I see that the vast majority of material is well-sourced. I noticed that there were some entries on the former Christians list that lacked sources, but such lapses are best addressed by deletion of the individual unsourced entries, rather than deletion of the entire list. (4) I don't think a combined nomination of such lists for deletion is appropriate, since many such lists vary widely in the quality of their sourcing and inclusion criteria, despite their other similarities. Also, there are unique circumstances to certain subjects that require us to consider certain lists separately. For example, being Christian is almost exclusively a matter of religious identity, while being Jewish is a matter of religious, cultural and/or ethnic identity. Nick Graves (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nick Graves, You say that, "For example, being Christian is almost exclusively a matter of religious identity, while being Jewish is a matter of religious, cultural and/or ethnic identity." My question to you would be, do Jewish children emerge from Christian families? No, they do not, except rarely. So why isn't Christianity an "ethnic identity," to use your words? I am fully aware of matrilineal and patrilineal descent among Jews. But while codified in Judaism, is the phenomenon much different in Christianity? Obviously children follow parents. This is the general trend, regardless of whether considering Jews or Christians. A child of Christian parents is likely to grow up to be a Christian, because his/her upbringing was one steeped in traditions of a "Christian" nature. Why do you consider Judaism an ethnicity and Christianity not an ethnicity? And as for the "cultural components" part of your assertion, — I fail to see how "Christmas," for instance, would not be something "cultural" of particular meaning to Christians. Christians and Jews live side by side and are not unaware of one another's holidays and other practices, and even practice them. But why wouldn't some such entities have specifically Christian significance? Bus stop (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That Christians rarely become Jewish doesn't mean they rarely leave Christianity. And Christianity is not an ethnicity for reasons that should be obvious.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And Jews also leave Judaism. What I said was that a child of Christian parents is likely to grow up to be a Christian. It should be obvious that there are exceptions. Jewish children, like Christian children, tend to follow in the footsteps of their parents. It probably wouldn't occur to me to make a case for Christianity being an ethnicity. But then again nor would it occur to me to make the case that Judaism is an ethnicity. Obviously "religion" is one of several possible components of the concept of ethnicity. I am questioning the above assertion that, "…being Christian is almost exclusively a matter of religious identity, while being Jewish is a matter of religious, cultural and/or ethnic identity." Don't Christians also have cultural components to their identity? Don't the children of Christians tend to be Christians themselves? Bus stop (talk) 03:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, I'm not going to get into the discussion about whether there is an ethnic component to Jewish identity, because it is not directly relevant to whether these lists should be deleted. You may disagree with the example I gave, but the point remains that the differences in the quality of inclusion criteria and sources, as well as other differences in the list subjects, make it more appropriate to nominate them individually. Our disagreement about the ethnicity issue with regards to the former Jews list should be evidence enough that the merits of these lists ought to be considered individually. Nick Graves (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not responding is fine. But the question you are not responding to is a question I did not ask. I didn't ask if there was an "ethnic component to Jewish identity," as you say above. I asked why you didn't see similar components applicable to Christian identity? Again, this was your assertion: "For example, being Christian is almost exclusively a matter of religious identity, while being Jewish is a matter of religious, cultural and/or ethnic identity." Bus stop (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many comments above would be better used on the article talk page. There has been no serious question that people who have left the Jewish faith are "former Jews", so that part does not carry water. Nor is the routine deprecation of all lists a valid grounds for deletion. Nor is the fact that it is not 100% complete important (else almost all lists would be deletable). What are we left with? Precedent on WP that such lists are properly encyclopedic, a precedent I am loath to overturn. As for using BLP as a rationale to delete the list -- BLP is properly used to delete contentious material about living people, and that can be done without deleting the article. We are left with no actual policy grounds for deletion, hence default to Keep. Collect (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a sample entry: "Bob Dylan - popular musician who converted to Christianity in 1979.[12] He later began studying with Chabad, a branch of Hasidic Judaism,[13] though his current religious affiliation is uncertain." How does that make him a "former Jew"?Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if you investigated a bit and saw Dylan's main article it says he was born in a jewish family and now "Dylan says he now subscribes to no organized religion" (according to a reporter who interviewed him). If you have issues with a certain entry, take it to the talk page as said before. The problem is that you didnt investigate anything. You didnt even read the previous AfDs as I pointed out before. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 15:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I plan on working on the articles if they are kept. Here is a link that is supposed to show a person is a "former Muslim": 1. The point being that inclusion on the lists is very sloppy. I also know many Jews who do not subscribe to an organized religion, and everyone thinks they are still Jewish. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Matt57, Dylan need not subscribe to any organized religion, to be a Jew. Most Jews in America and in the world are not religious. That does not make them not Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And where is the evidence that Madonna (entertainer) was ever a Christian or now a "fomer Christian"? Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you're not bothering to investigate anything. For example you could go visit that person's WP page: Wong Ah Kiu says she converted from Islam to Buddhism. If you have issues with Madonnna, take it to the talk page. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Her own family disputed it, as the article made clear but not the list. And WP:BLP says that poorly sourced controversial material should be removed at once, not taken to the talk page. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious right thing to do then is to mention it in the entry. Its clear that she personally converted. The courts also confirmed that. You're picking out a tough entry and using it to question the whole list. Why dont you bring up good names that have no problems too. Be a little fair. The issue you're bringing up applies to the categories too. Its an individual issue as I've said multiple times. Its not a problem in the list itself. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can anyone address the issue I raised above, namely that Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists_of_people states that "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category". The people in this list are not notable for being former jews; they are notable for other things entirely. Thus this list is in complete conflict with that guideline. If kept, everyone presently in the list would have to be deleted and the article would have to be essentially recreated including only persons specifically notable for being converts. Locke9k (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of the people on the list is highly notable for having converted, Sabbatai Zevi, a former messianic figure who converted to islam. i think he could stay. While i agree that we dont serve people well by including them in the list if its a minor fact of who they are, but if they have made a public issue of it, and they are notable, and there is any public discourse about it, then they are important in that category. i dont see an inherent conflict with the guideline. people can be notable in more than one category on WP.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so "At least one of the people on the list is highly notable for having converted," according to Mercurywoodrose. The one cited is "Sabbatai Zevi." Are there any others? Or is it a list of "one?" The guideline says, "Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category". If none of the other names are "selected for importance/notability in that category" then why are they on the list, and why does the list exist in the first place? "Sabbatai Zevi" is not a reason for a list. Bus stop (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would also be notable with Ram Dass, Arnold Fruchtenbaum, Johannes Pfefferkorn, Moishe Rosen, Joseph Wolff, and Israel Zolli.--T. Anthony (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to list converts by the religion they converted to. Of course a convert very important in the history of his/her former religion (Martin Luther for instance) would be discussed in articles on that faith, but no special reason to list all former Roman Catholics together. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Locke9k, I suggest you raise that excellent point on the talk pages of the lists, as it seems to concern what the content of the list should be, not whether the entire list should be deleted. Based on the guideline you mention, I'm changing my comment above to "keep". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lists are not categories. Please check out WP:Lists which says "Redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial because the two categories work together". --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately other lists are also being nominated, its not just the Jews list. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep; nominations of valid categories that are Jewish-related continues to be a serious and ongoing problem at our project. Of a person has publicly stated that they no longer consider themselves of the Jewish faith, and they meet WP notability, then they can be described that way. Badagnani (talk) 06:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most prominent people on the "former Jews" list is Saint Paul(one of two pictures). I've read his letters and I'm pretty sure he never said he left the Jewish faith or was a "former Jew." Steve Dufour (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was checking out some of the deleted Jewish related categories and I saw that I voted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Messianic Jews and Hebrew Christians. I didn't think it was a problem. I thought the category was properly deleted. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Most of the debate is focusing on the "former Jews" list, yet the other two have much the same kind of problems. The "former Christians" list tends to assume that if a person grew up in a family that went to church he or she was a Christian. This is not how most Christians would define it. See Christian. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should delete even the 'current' religion categories. Why put somoene in the Christian or Muslim category? Are they really one? How do we know? And so on. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A positive list is much better than a negative one. I don't think we need lists like "List of people who don't go to church/synagogue." Kitfoxxe (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So should List of former Protestants, List of former Roman Catholics, List of former Latter Day Saints, and my creation List of former atheists and agnostics be on AfD?--T. Anthony (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If lists of "former" XYZ are negative then there's also: List of former German colonies, List of former United States senators and so on. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kitfoxxe, if the former Christians list makes erroneous assumptions with regards to anyone's supposed former Christian identity, then that is grounds for improvement of the inclusion criteria, and deletion of particular people whose alleged prior religious identity is inadequately supported by reliable sources. It is not grounds for deletion of the entire list. There are those whose renunciation of Christianity is well-documented, and such information ought to be retained. Nick Graves (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If the articles are kept I plan to go through them and remove anything poorly sourced about living people. It is usually not looked open well if an AfD nominator edits the article while the AfD is still open. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all A person who stops following Judaism is not a "former Jew", for instance famous atheist Isaac Asimov remained a Jew regardless of his religious beliefs. The others are also poorly constructed, although not as blatently, since they lump together people who converted to a new religion and became notable in that, George Harrison, and people who just lost interest and stopped going to church or mosque.Northwestgnome (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep We need to be careful about the wording and the sourcing. But there's no reason not to include them. It may make sense to include only people who actively converted to another religion or publically renounced their own religion but that's more of an editorial decision. For the majority of the people in these lists there is not only good sourcing for their status but that status is related to their notability. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How are such lists unmaintainable? It seems clear to me that lists of this type can be quite easily maintained by stating the inclusion criteria (that is, those who used to be a member of a certain religion) and adding or removing people based on whether reliable sources confirm that they fit that description. I've been maintaining similar lists of people for years now, and one of them (List of Telecaster players) is even a featured list. No, these lists are maintainable. Whether one is completely satisfied with how they've been maintained up to this point is a different matter... Nick Graves (talk) 10:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How would you define "member of a certain religion"?Steve Dufour (talk) 02:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, lists are as easy to maintain as any other article. Another funny argument here (by SlimVirgin) was "no argument is ever made as to why such lists would ever be notable", and I pointed out "do lists have to be notable? Really?" to which I didnt get any reply. It looks like people dont know enough about lists or dont see the WP:Lists page. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually "Jew" is a fine word. It's just that in the USA we think it is more polite to use a multi-sylable expression to refer to people. Hence "African American" or "colored person" rather than "black" or, as is sometimes heard, "Caucasian" rather than "white." Steve Dufour (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "Black" is the preferred term. But if someone calls someone in my Dad's (Jewish) family a "Jew", I'd have to consider punching them in the face.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 03:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with "Black." It's just that some people think a longer expression is more polite. Also many Jewish editors here use the word "Jew." I don't think you would find "Jewish person" in many WP articles. (What is funny is a lot of bios saying the person "was born into a Jewish [or African American] family" without saying they are that. Michelle Obama's did this for a while.)Steve Dufour (talk) 03:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NJA (t/c) 07:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horn Group

edit
Horn Group (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 created by an account in conflict of interest. Would prefer community discussion on whether the article meets inclusion guidelines however. Personally, it has notability and reliable 3rd party source issues. NJA (t/c) 14:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, as it appears notable. However, it should be checked for WP:NPOV. There is no need to delete, just to fix it up a bit. It's not beyond repair. Gosox5555 (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unambiguous advertising: a digital communications firm specializing in public relations, social media and interactive services. The agency helps companies establish and promote their brands and engage with their audience in any medium. Services include brand strategy and message development, creative and interactive design, social media marketing, public relations and web development.... expertise in enterprise software and services industries such as ERP, supply chain, CRM, business intelligence, SaaS and security.... approach combines the goal-oriented process of a large professional services firm with the streamlined efficiency of a boutique design agency.... Also, the "sources" seem to be trade awards and listings, investment related newsletters, or blogs - not the sort of coverage that yields notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like someone mistook Wikipedia for a business directory. --Calton | Talk 15:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Noone

edit
James Noone (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 evidence of notability. The only references given are to broadwayworld and ibdb. Neither of these does any more than give credits for work done by Noone: neither is substantial coverage. Also it is questionable how far these can be regarded as independent sources: idbd is a trade association, and broadwayworld is largely promotional. Also broadwayworld is not a reliable source, as anyone can create an account and post information. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. sourcing doesnt pass muster Spartaz Humbug! 16:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agta (mythical creature)

edit
Agta (mythical creature) (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)
  • When looking for information on this subject I discovered you deleted an article called "Agta (Mythical Creature)" in April 2009.
    I lived in the Philippines for three years and did not become aware of this cultural belief in this super natural being until it was almost the time I moved back to the United States. Looking for information on this subject I stumbled onto Wikipedia and discovered that YOU had erased the article I was looking for. In my opinion this was a very culturally insensitive thing to do.
    Please restore the article immediately because I do not know how to do this. If you don't believe this is a mythological creature in the Philippines among Cebuano speaking people I have a reference from Dictionary of Cebuano Visaya by John U. Wolff.
    Because you erased the article I was seeking I am unable to find more information on this subject. Dr CareBear (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (1) The only references given are to a blog post and an open wiki, neither of them reliable sources. (2) Neither of the two references could remotely be regarded as substantial coverage anyway, even if it were reliable. (3) I have made a web search and checked dozens of pages, and cannot find any reliable sources for this, although there are various posts to blogs and such unreliable sources. (4)"Because you erased the article I was seeking I am unable to find more information on this subject" is not an argument for keeping the article: on the contrary, it strongly suggests that the information in the article is not to be found elsewhere, i.e. that it is not verifiable, and not notable. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Because you cannot find any references on the subject it doesnot mean it is not notable. It is about some sort of a belief and mythical creatoure and so it is notable. In the very end because YOU could not find any info about it in the Internet only means that it is noyt very known to the people not that it is not true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmiloulis (talk • contribs) 15:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wikipedia uses the existence of substantial coverage of the subject as its criterion of notability, so, as far as we are concerned, if there are no references it does mean it is not notable. If a subject is not well known and not much written about we do not have an article about it: whether it is "true" is not the criterion. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article Edited
    I have edited the article sufficiently so that it is not a simple cut and paste dump from somewhere else so that it can not be argued that it is a copy right violation. Hope you like and enjoy the edits. Dr CareBear (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good job, it's looking better already! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Merge to Kapre it is apparent that they are the same thing. --Bejnar (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have certainly moved on since the proposal for deletion was made. The copyright problem seems to have been dealt with. We have four references in the article, and one of the links given above by Andrew Lenahan is not included in the article, so that gives us five online references. In addition we are given a reference to J. U Wolff's Dictionary of Cebuano Visaya, making a total of six references.
  1. The dictionary confirms that the word exists with the stated meaning, and gives us two sentences about the use of the word. That is all.
  2. This reference is a mistake. It refers to a member of a negrito tribe called "Agta", not the mythical creature "Agta". You can read about the Agta tribe here here, here, etc etc.
  3. This is a list of mythical creatures in a television series. It is an open wiki, which anyone can edit, and so is not a reliable source. Even as an unreliable source it serves only to tell us about the television series, not about Philippine mythology.
  4. This gives six brief bullet points jointly referring to Agta, Bawa, and Ungo. Not exactly substantial coverage.
  5. The Encyclopedia Mythica article gives five short sentences on the Agta.
  6. This article is about a cave called "the Balay sa Agta". The article briefly mentions the fact that "agta" is also the name of a mythical creature. In fact here is the full verbatim text of all that this "reference" tells us about the mythical agta: "An agta is a Philippine mythical creature described as tall, brown, and hairy, and usually portrayed as smoking a big tobacco pipe".
The conclusion of all this is that we have no substantial coverage of the subject at all. Some of the references have to be discounted altogether, as being on different subjects and/or unreliable, and none of them is substantial, so there is no evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Even if we were to accept all the five references they would serve as sources for only a small fraction of what is given in the article, and the article would therefore have to be reduced to a stub. Leaving out Tmiloulis, who clearly does was not aware of Wikipedia's notability criteria, we have two editors who have asked for "keep". With every respect to these two Wikipedians, who have put some effort into finding references and defending the article, finding Google hits or other sources which mention the topic is not enough: it is necessary to show that there is substantial coverage in reliable sources, and, despite the efforts of these two editors, this has not been done. "Delete" is the only result consistent with Wikipedia policy under the circumstances. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

George Udeani

edit
George Udeani (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)

While 1900+ citations usually is rather significant, in the present case almost all of these citations are to one single article on which this person is a minor author. Very modest publication record (4 articles listed in WoS from the last 10 years, 1 from the last 5). Editor-in-Chief of a journal, but not a major one (does not even exist yet and appears to be self-published). One book in press, but also self-published. Does not meet any of the requirements of WP:PROF. Crusio (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Please note that the quality of this person's work is not an issue here at all, we are uniquely concerned with encyclopedic notability. --Crusio (talk) 05:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is ironic that Wikipedia used this scientist’s work to demonstrate notability for Deguelin, where 25% of the citations is his work, but does not find him notable for Wikipedia. Please note, this individual made Deguelin. Deguelin did not make this scientist. I still say Keep. --Chaagg1 (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not vote more than once in a debate. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
This isn't a vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Handschuh-talk to me 11:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see section on how to conduct an AfD debate in WP:AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I assumed that that comment was directed at me, so I did review that section. I didn't find anything that seemed relevant to my previous comment though. What are you getting at? Handschuh-talk to me 10:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about criterion 1, since he played a key role in the discovery of several drugs, notable in his field? Or criterion 7, for that matter, since the drugs are used by many people outside of academia? Handschuh-talk to me 13:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for explaining. Yes, if all that were true, he would be more than notable. However, if you look at the references and look more closer into these grandiose claims, then you will see that it is all puffery. If this person was as briljant as claimed, then why is he now not a big shot at some pharmaceutical company or university? I have not been able to find out what, if any, position he has currently. --Crusio (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Udeani seems to have been involved in a minor controversy, although it does not seem to have garnered enough attention to meet GNG directly. This document shows that in 2008 he was suspended and put on probation for 3 years by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation for "failure to perform pharmacist-in-charge duties". The pharmacy apparently closed immediately after this. Although it does not establish notability, if the article stays, this should obviously be added to it, although it would be nice if some more details could be found. --Crusio (talk) 17:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Assistant professor who was on a team that discovered something. This is not a sufficient claim of notability. High cite number only reflects membership on this team, and it is clear that he was not the main discover. Abductive (reasoning) 17:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Not enough academic credentials to be obviously notable, and the "will be published soon"-type of material is disturbing, but has apparently made some contributions in areas which tend to be high-profile and receive attention from general media, so I lean towards keep after all. Tomas e (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Updated original artical on George Udeani to include academic work. Please review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaagg1 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I believe the biggest argument against Udeani is his article publications and whether he was a significant contributor to the articles cited. I just went through his page and he seems to have enough articles where he is first author. Also, we should not dilute the significance of his contributions to drug development. Someone argued earlier, that he should be at a University or working for a pharmaceutical company if he is brilliant. Apart from the fact that this does not establish notability, we do not know that he is not, therefore I find that argument petty, unprofessional and very subjective. Subject seems notable to me.--Soccersunshine (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC) — Soccersunshine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment Look at it this way. According to the article, Udeani is a giant of cancer drug discovery. "Udeani and colleagues discovered and developed four anti-cancer agents", nothing less. Yet, there are no sources showing that he ever published any significant articles (except that Science paper on which he is a minor author) or had a position more significant than assistant professor. On the other hand, we have sources establishing that he was working as a pharmacist in some ordinary pharmacy as recently as 2008. Somehow, these things don't square with each other. I think that the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation is more reliable than some editor adding unsourced stuff to this bio. (And given the detailed knowledge this editor has about Udeani's career -nothing of which seems to be available online- this is clearly a person close to Udeani, or perhaps this is even an autobiography). --Crusio (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just took a second look at Udeani's article, there is no where it is stated that he is a Giant of drug discovery; as a matter of fact, I read that he significantly participated to the development of 4 major cancer drugs and honestly, this is good enough for me. If we went about looking into the details of every notable person's background, we surely will find that many may have interned, moonlighted /held second jobs in not too attractive organizations. Does this disqualify their contributions? I think not. I believe that Wikipedia was designed for more than politics and that is the direction I am going to take. Two of 8 articles on deguelin listed on Wikipedia are from Udeani. High citation for resveratrol and not deguelin or betulinic acid which is currently in clinical trials is simply because there appears to be more interest in this common drug, which is present in wine and fruit. It takes a long time to approve drugs.--Soccersunshine (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Somebody who works full time in academia or the drug industry simply does not have time to "moonlight" as a pharmacist. In fact, there is no evidence anywhere that it was "Udeani and colleagues" that discovered these drugs. At the very best (and not even that is certain), Udeani was part of the teams that did this, him being a very minor member of those teams. And then apparently he left research. --Crusio (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The citations for the resveratrol paper are quite impressive, but his position in the author list indicates that his role in the paper was relatively minor, and the rest of the citations, while not bad, aren't enough to convince me of a pass of WP:PROF #1. And if not that, what reason is there to keep the article? Contrary to Tomas e's keep comment, he himself has not received attention from general media: some of the subjects he's studied have, but notability is not inherited. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - at first glance this person seems notable, but upon further examination and consideration of the discussions above, it seems pretty clear to me that he does not pass WP:PROF, and the fact that he appears to have been only a minor contributor to these discoveries does not indicate to me that he merits inclusion under the notability guidelines. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Weak delete the one extremely highly cited publication does not seem to indicate that he had any particularly important role in it.,as explained by David E. The disciplinary action is minor & unrelated to any likely notability otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A3 JohnCD (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn, Python ORM

edit
Autumn, Python ORM (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)

WITHDRAWN - Sorry, I think I'll just A3 it. Really sorry about this, should have thought more carefully, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 13:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I can't find significant coverage for this product or project (not sure which). Doesn't seem to be notable enough for inclusion. Article consists only of an external link to the thing's official website. I was considering WP:A1, WP:A3 and WP:G11, but the single external link put me off (I'll reconsider the SD, though, if there's consensus), Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 12:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Novotny

edit
Michal Novotny (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 composer, lack of substantial reliable third party sources indicating notability of the subject. The present sources barely mention his name, I didn't find more informations related to this subject (Novotny is a quite common surname in the Czech Republic) neither in English nor in Czech language. Vejvančický (talk) 12:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It appears that only Alexandra Fol has a WP entry of her own. A massive list of mainly non-notable performers is no evidence of notability. Note that some of these names are duplicated (eg Quatuor Bozzini, but even they have no seperate entry). The citations do nothing to establish notability either. --Jubilee♫clipman 23:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Husalah

edit
Husalah (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)

CSD prior due to notability. Here again with same issues, but thought I'd put this one up for debate this time. NJA (t/c) 11:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Overall, clearly concerns and issues with notability and inclusion guidance at WP:BIO NJA (t/c) 07:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lokey (artist)

edit
Lokey (artist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This page should not be deleted, as the soucre information is correct, I have listed publications that the person is listed in, books that have been published and the relivence that the said Pesron Lokey/Pert is related to Banksy history as a graffiti Artist, as well as Lokey/Pert being a Graffiti Artist, which he is a significant part of the Graffiti Culture in Bristol, and has been for the past 20 plus years, along with like's of Inkie, Bankys and 3D. Kineta (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Lokey is classed as a Non-notable graffiti artist, why have Wikipedia still included a fellow Bristolian Graffiti Artist (Who Lokey has wrote and painted with, many times) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheo Who happens to have less information on his page and is listing his website as a sorce, When I have listed serveral publications, and have backed my information with cite and references or sources. Kineta (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheo has left the encyclopedia. WWGB (talk) 09:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more infomation, refferences and cite's to the page, I will also contiue updating the page. If you have any suggestions, they are very welcome! Thank you Kineta (talk) 07:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. I must say, I'm disappointed here. The artwork is incredible, but every single last "reference" cited in this article is a passing mention. There is no substantial detail provided about Lokey as an artist in any of them. Can anyone tell me what is written in pages 125-131 of this book, "Children of the Can : 25 years of Bristol Graffiti" ? I'd love to have a change of heart here, but I'm not seeing how this meets WP:BIO at the moment. JBsupreme (talk) 08:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Xtweeksx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 08:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ready 'N Steady

edit
AfDs for this article:
Ready 'N Steady (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 deleted this article under A9 and was challenged on my talk page by its author, who recreated the article. I tagged it again for A9 to let another admin decide, and it was declined.

Non-notable single that may not ever have been released. This article discusses a single that possibly appeared below the Billboard Top 100 by an artist that has no article in Wikipedia and apparently cannot because no sources exist to support that such a group ever existed. The article furthermore refers to attempts to secure a copy of this single and purports that "no collector is known to have owned, or even seen or heard, the record in the last three decades" (with no citation for such an assertion). It is asserted that the single never made it to the Billboard top 100, so it doesn't appear to meet WP:NSONG on that basis.

The three sources in the article are a screen shot of a Billboard list, on which I cannot find reference to this song (not that it isn't there but I don't see it after several attempts), an article about Joel Whitburn that mentions this song in one line, and another article about Whitburn that does give the song more than passing mention, but certainly not anything like establishing notability.

So we have a single that may never have existed by a group that can't be found IRL or in the encyclopedia. Any claim that this is folk legend is not supported by the article or any of its sources, so it doesn't appear to be a meme worth including on that basis either. I could support a merge to Joel Whitburn with a line or two in his article explaining this as a curiosity, but I don't see how this article is about a subject which is notable.  Frank  |  talk  03:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hold opinion pending references. If notable, this song isn't notable as a song, it's notable for either its rarity or its non-existance. However, to establish notability, we will need to see non-trivial, significant coverage just like anything else. If references aren't added by the time this discussion closes, count me as delete. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Here are the three Bubbling Under charts from 1979: [22](scroll up), [23][24]. This from the article is "non-trivial" coverage from a reliable source. The song's notability appears to have little to do with the artist or lyrics or genre, but if coverage exists which questions if the song is real, that in itself can make this notable. For me, the key question for this to satisfy WP:NSONGS: is there "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article"? I can view this as a keeper, but there's not a lot to work with.  Gongshow Talk 07:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 07:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With regard to the first source (the Billboard chart at books.google.com), one has to scroll up to page 38 to find the "Bubbling Under" chart that the song appears on, but it is there. (It was actually one place ahead of "Born to Be Alive" by Patrick Hernandez that week.) The second source is a profile of Joel Whitburn, who may well be the top expert on the Billboard charts and who has been collecting basically every record to hit the charts ever. That profile, which was written 16 years after this single was allegedly released, devotes five paragraphs to "Ready 'N Steady". I believe the song is notable as either "the only chart single that Joel Whitburn couldn't find" or "the only chart single that never actually existed". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that the "chart" in question exists only to list singles that didn't make it onto a chart that would help establish notability. Certainly not every single that ever appeared on the Billboard 100 is notable; and this one - questions of its very existence aside - never appeared on the top 100.  Frank  |  talk  17:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it came within 2 positions of doing so, and during the time it was in the "Bubbling Under" list it outperformed, at various times, singles by Kenny Rogers and Dottie West, Crystal Gayle, Natalie Cole, and Roy Orbison. That's pretty impressive for an unknown single by an unknown band which may or may not have actually existed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Oddly, what makes "Ready 'N Steady" notable is the lack of information on it. It's quite possible that the listing was some kind of hoax, perhaps perpetrated by Billboard itself, or maybe they were the victim of someone wanting to see a bogus record in the magazine. (A similar situation occured with Lou Proctor, allegedly a Western Union operator who inserted his own name into a St. Louis Browns boxscore in 1912.) A Wikipedia article may flush out more sources, and maybe we can finally get to the bottom of this mystery. RMc (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 06:11, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you figure that the "Bubbling Under the Hot 100" list isn't a Billboard chart? It's a ranking of singles, based on airplay and sales, which is compiled by and published in Billboard magazine. That sounds like a Billboard chart to me. See Bubbling Under Hot 100 Singles. And one of the things that makes this single notable is the fact that it was listed on the chart despite the possibility that it might never have existed as an actual released recording. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's a chart that exists simply to list things that didn't make the "real" chart. Note also that the sole source for that article is the same source as for this one. Finally...let's remember that there's no verifiability that this single even exists.  Frank  |  talk  03:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to meet the GNG, even if what it's notable for is general huggermugger. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll go with Keep (had a "Comment" above). I don't believe WP:V suggests that a subject's existence is required to support an article (see the Tooth Fairy); only that information contained within articles must have appeared in a reliable source. In this song's case, its three Billboard chart appearances are verified by the three magazine issues. Notability is established with coverage in two additional sources, Deseret News and CelebrityAccess, both of which appear independent and reliable. On the whole, I feel that the subject meets WP:GNG, albeit not overwhelmingly. Whether or not "Bubbling Under" is considered a "real" chart is debatable and not at issue here because either way, to meet WP:NSONGS, there must exist "enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article". In my view, there's just enough to satisfy the criteria.  Gongshow Talk 20:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gongshow's reasoning, meeting the general notability guidline. Cheers, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kancho

edit
AfDs for this article:
Kancho (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 morass of poorly-sourced cultural commentary. Almost reads like a hoax; there are certainly no reliable sources to be found for the article content. Previous AFDs have brought to light some web sources, but they all seem to make reference to Wikipedia implicitly or explicitly. I don't speak Japanese, but the sources at the Japanese wiki appear to be of similar (i.e. poor) quality as those here. Given that this content has proved impossible to source in accordance with WP:V and WP:RS, delete — ækTalk 07:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bernadette Clayton

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF. nothing in gnews about this specific Bernadette Clayton [26]. the claim about being a "prominent" educator is only in 1 ref in the article. only 1 article in gscholar. LibStar (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madisen hill

edit
Madisen hill (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:N, no WP:RS cited. Delete Basket of Puppies 07:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Madisen has shown great growth already in her career. She knows what she wants and is going for it. She aims to please! No matter what she will keep pressing on! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkie2381 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC) — Pinkie2381 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was Keep Bristol per SNOW, as any boob can tell. (NAC) RMHED (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol Palin

edit
Bristol Palin (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)
Vanity, a daughter of a former governor of a US state, who is absolutely not notable in her own right (she is only known for being the daughter of said politician). There are hundreds of current and former US governors living, and I'm sure a lot of them have children. If we allow the creation of articles on children of former US state governors, we open the door to children of county governors (and similar positions) of other countries as well, which is ridiculous. (Is Bristol even a name?). At the very best, this could be a redirect to the article on her mother who is the only notable member of her family.
Note that the talk page alleges that the article was "kept" some years ago, however, the discussion did actually not concern this page at all, but "Sarah Palin redirect talk pages". A redirect to the article on her mother is a totally different question. Urban XII (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Under which criterion for speedy keep does this qualify? It is probably a snowball keep at this point, but it isn't speedy per se. —C.Fred (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think criterion 1 applies, although it might require a little stretching; certainly the first reason stated, "Vanity," is utter nonsense, and most of the remaining rationale is rather facetious. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While notable mostly for one event, the absolute maelstrom of press coverage made this person a household name during the election, and the bottom line is Wikipedia wouldn't be complete without this article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we must not confuse notability with accomplishment, wisdom, popularity, etc. they all may help to make someone notable, or not. she is highly notable now, and thats enough for an article. and i agree she probably doesnt deserve so much coverage, but thats not my call, unless i am rupert murdoch. (maybe i am...)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting SNOWy. Does the next passing admin want to put this AfD out of its misery? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 20:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I'll probably be the last one to comment, however Bristol has been covered in ABC, Slate, MSN, PEOPLE, and many others. The other politicians? Their children haven't done all the interviews or had media coverage the way Bristol did; the other Palin children do not have their own articles, nor do the youngest two Hilton sons. These are major news anchors at their finest. Also, Bristol is the name of a market and English university. See here. ★Dasani★ 21:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep and speedy close.--Milowent (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep when editors who traditionally delete everything vote to keep, you know there is a problem with this nomination. Well referenced article, very well known person in US. Ikip 17:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leonie Castelino

edit
Leonie Castelino (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 her own website, I can't find any information on this textile artist other than a handful of one-line announcements that her work is on display, etc. No reviews of exhibitions, descriptions of her art, or anything else that would indicate notability. The photo released here as own work is also the photo on her website, indicating a possible conflict of interest.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 07:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Fuhrmeister

edit
Chris Fuhrmeister (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)

Unreferenced WP:BLP that has either no mention of, or weak mention of, notability. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mortal Kombat Kollection

edit
Mortal Kombat Kollection (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 compilation of three games which all have their own articles. The compilation can be named in those articles, if it's sufficiently notable, but doesn't require its own article. Can't be easily merged as there are three articles it references. Maccy69 (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam era music

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

"Vietnam era music" is entirely too vague a title for an encyclopedia article, because the "Vietnam era," depending on how what defines it, can run from the end of World War Two to the Fall of Saigon in 1975. What this article offers is a vague definition of the period of US involvement in Vietnam, i.e., "the mid 1960s to the mid 1970s," which is still too general because there is entirely too much music that came out in even that period of time. The further argument that the examples given "were generally popular songs in their day" is nice, but still too vague and not encyclopedic. "Okie from Muskogee" was popular in certain sectors, but I doubt it would be listed. Instead, what the article offers by way of definition is "songs I heard in one of these Vietnam War movies I saw." Sorry, but that don't cut it. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around, but could not find a topic that is exact, but I am sure one must exist. Certainly, something better than this. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 05:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was thinking of a book by Philip Beidler--but in my mind I conflated The Good War's Greatest Hits (which isn't really about music) and American Literature and the Experience of Vietnam. He's got a couple more books on Vietnam and popular culture, but they're on literature rather than music. Drmies (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while im sure many journalists have made mention of the music popular during the vietnam era, i dont think this ever became a true label for music from that time, just a convenient phrase to use for some of the music of that time. I presume the article on the vietnam war mentions some of the music that had content or tone related to the war. otherwise, this is just an idea for trivia fans, and no content is sourced.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I very much doubt that the subject of the article is notable, but, if it is, the title certainly needs to be changed. Vietnam has existed as a recognisable entity for over a thousand years, so the title "Vietnam era music" could cover all music produced over this time. Please let's remember that not all readers stand in a United States point of view.Phil Bridger (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that, even if the name were changed to "Vietnam War era music," it would still be too broad to be useful. But, your point is well taken. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B-Girl

edit
B-Girl (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 reliable sources to confirm this album, only fansites. No confirmed release date and no confirmed tracklist, it's likely that this isn't even the title of the album. No significant coverage either, so this fails WP:NALBUM. Chase wc91 04:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Changed vote to redirect – see below.[reply]

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

The result was delete. Jayjg (talk) 01:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Street Kings (gang)

edit
Street Kings (gang) (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 online, the one reference provided does not mention any gang of this name or any African gang at all for that matter. Suggest all the information in the article is completely fabricated

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. policy based arguments concern sourcing and this diesnt have good sources Spartaz Humbug! 16:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stumpwm

edit
Stumpwm (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)

Besides being recommended in passing as "virtually unusable until you read the documentation" in a linux.com article, which conveniently was missing from this article, I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable WP:SECONDARY sources for this software. Pcap ping 17:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And may I note that the nominator shows a severe lack of good faith? Phota, the reason that link isn't there is because it was published in 31 May 2007, and my last content-added edits were in January 2007 because I was then switching to XMonad. (And even then, it's no more worth including than Bash or Unix ought to include comments that it's unusable without reading docs.) A little checking of the history would've revealed that I've left Stumpwm on my watchlist but naught else. --Gwern (contribs) 22:15 25 December 2009 (GMT)
Chill. I didn't accuse you of anything. At the time of the nomination, the article already had a link to the linux.com review, which I discovered it only covers it in a few words, but even that coverage wasn't fairly reflected in the article. Instead we have full paragraph quotations from the WP:PRIMARY sources, and advertorial statements like far more malleable and rewritable. If the only secondary source makes a commentary that you consider WP:UNDUE, then this article has zilch secondary sources to write from. Which is is generally a good reason to delete it. Pcap ping 06:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And concerning "N has always been unclear for software packages", what's the point of having a wiki article that simply reproduces the debian package summary or the developer's description? Wikipedia is not a directory of software, free or otherwise. Save for that contested linux.com opinion (which I added), what does this article add to what I can read on stumpwm's home page? Even some screenshots are copied from there. Pcap ping 06:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does it add? It is an integrated summary of concepts, links, photos, and related articles. If you seriously think the front page of the StumpWM homepage is as informative...
And why do I quote? Because though the statements are practically banal truisms to anyone who has used it, people like you would still object and cry POV - much like you seem to be doing because the article didn't quote the linux.com article and warn readers 'this is a horrible window manager you should avoid!' (Incidentally, what does that linux.com quote 'add to what I can read on' the link?) --Gwern (contribs) 15:02 5 January 2010 (GMT)
You should volunteer your services to improve their web site. I'm not saying this in jest; there are many ways in which one can contribute to open source. But, Wikipedia isn't meant to be a better sourceforge. Pcap ping 15:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a perfectly reasonable article to me. If the article feels unbalanced or NPOV to you, then why don't you add the sentences to give it the more balanced coverage that you wish? (i.e. you seem to want to say that its a bad piece of software... although I honestly don't see how that will improve either the article, or the nature of Wikipedia collaboration.) Overall, this nomination strikes me as a "wanton destructionist" AfD, and should be a speedy-keep. 99.153.64.179 (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a very skewed interpretation of that article. It doesn't state that using it requires reading 'the whole manual', nor does it 'dismiss' it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.49.6 (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever my interpretation is, the fact that matters in this discussion is that coverage is one or two sentences. Pcap ping 11:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 16:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logiweb

edit
Logiweb (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 a computer system for describing and checking formal mathematics. Not yet released and no attempt made to establish notability. (Prod removed with a rude, and inaccurate edit summary.) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help, I'm a little lost here.

As far as I can see, my article on Logiweb was first nominated for speedy deletion, then someone intervened, and now the article is marked for (non-speedy) deletion. But I am new to Wikipedia and could not trace exactly who said what when.

As far as I can see, the following issues have been raised:

  • A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject.
  • It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.
  • It lacks a proof of notability.
  • Logiweb is not yet released.

The first point is true. I created Logiweb and I have used it and its predecessors for teaching logic at the University of Copenhagen for two decades [28]. If my close connection to the system prevents inclusion in Wikipedia, I suppose there is nothing I can do about that, and then the article can be deleted without further discussion. I am not prepared to ask my research colleagues or my former students or Ph.D. students to write about the system just to circumvent rules.

Concerning the second point, I am in doubt. I cannot spot any non-neutral statement in what I wrote.

Concerning the third point, I need advice. I did read the rules about notability before I wrote the Wikipedia article. And I included references to two peer-reviewed papers about Logiweb. What more shall I do?

The Logiweb system belongs to the same family of systems as ACL2, Alt-Ergo, Automath, Coq, CVC, E, EQP, Gandalf, Gödel-machines, HOL, HOL Light, Isabelle, IsaPlanner, Jape, KED, KeY, KeYmaera, LCF, Leo II, LoTREC, MetaPRL, Matita, NuPRL, Otter, Paradox, PhoX, Prover9 / Mace4, PVS, SNARK, SPASS, Tau, Theorema, Acumen RuleManager, Alligator, CARINE, KIV, Mizar, Prover Plug-In, ProverBox, ResearchCyc, Simplify, SPARK, Spear modular arithmetic theorem prover, Theorem Proving System (TPS), Twelf, Vampire/Vampyre, Waldmeister mentioned at Automated theorem proving. In my opinion, some of them are much more notable than Logiweb, and some are at the same level of notability as Logiweb.

Concerning the fourth point, I would like to note that there have been 11 alpha test releases 2004-2006, 9 beta test releases 2006-2007, and 6 pre-releasess in 2009. The releases have mainly been used by students and Ph.D.-students at the University of Copenhagen, but the releases were mature enough for that use. The last beta test release was announced publicly in 2007 on relevant mailing lists (types, fom, and mkm). It is correct that Version 1.0.0 is not yet released.

Any suggestions on what I should do from here? Kgrue (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The issue here, not surprisingly, is third-party notability-- that is, evidence that other people of some importance care. GScholar shows references from other papers besides those authored by its creator, but they are thin on the ground and it's not clear that any of them are more than catalogues of systems/techniques. Mangoe (talk) 14:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only references are articles by Logiweb's creator, as it were, so no third-party evidence. Fails WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 21:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there are multiple articles that reference the system. It appears to be notable. Another source, found via google news archives: [29]. 3 is usually enough to establish notability. There are certainly 2. Gosox5555 (talk) 04:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see the notability here. Besides, I am not sure about the second reference listed--that's a published series of lecture notes? The PDF linked to does not suggest it's part of a book. Anyway, that article also has this in its bibliography: Grue, K.: Logiweb. In Kamareddine, F., ed.: Mathematical Knowledge Management Symposium 2003. Volume 93 of Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science., Elsevier (2004) 70–101. Now that would be something, of course--but my problem is that even published by Elsevier, this can hardly be called a third-party publication. So, basically, as Ironholds says: notability is not established. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not enough secondary coverage to be notable. Once it is released, if it has a significant impact on the field, it should receive enough mention by reliable sources to stand up to the notability tests. Remember, there is no deadline, and Wikipedia will still be here tomorrow. --SquidSK (1MC•log) 06:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bridget Minamore

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

Procedural nom. Concern was "Fails our Notability guidelines for people." TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Araneta

edit
Karin Araneta (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)

Poorly or not at all sourced. Probably self advertising Sam (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Slate (software)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logicle Secretary

edit
Logicle Secretary (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 search software. The last time I checked, this had ten Google hits, and simply nothing at all that could support inclusion. My PROD was contested, so here we are.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 19:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TrsWM

edit
TrsWM (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)

Yet another tiling window manager not covered in any depth by independent sources. WP:DICTDEF article. Pcap ping 18:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Major differences:
    • TrsWM is about the window manager, not about the word "TrsWM". Although the only information is (beside the links) that it is a window manager and based on Ion, this makes TrsWM only being a stub. The article itself is expandable.
    • It's no synonym. TrsWM stands for itself.
    • It's no orthographic variant of any other word always existing in Wikipedia.
    • Being a window manager TrsWM is well-defined from any other thing that maybe also could be named "trswm" or so.
  • Minor differences:
    • It is not inflected.
    • It is a noun (an abbreviation used like a noun).
    • It is an English title.
    • The "proper noun" argument is not relavant, because there are currently no entries with the same or similar name in the English Wikipedia.
  • Other arguments:
    • WP:DICTDIF says "that dictionary and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length". Being a stub is no argument against being a Wikipedia article.
    • WP:DICTDIF also says "a stub dictionary article, which is simply where Wiktionary articles start from". Stubs are articles existing for being expanded and completed, not for being deleted.
  • Traps:
    • WP:DICTDIF says that both, dictionaries and encyclopedias, need a good definition. This is no difference. You can ask if the definition of TrsWm is a good definition. But it is a definition.
    • TrsWM contains no usage guide. For that it has a link to the official page.
    • Is TrsWM "genealogical"? It mentions its origin from Ion. But this is not uncommon. It is part of a full and correct article about a software to mention its origin, because it's part of the software's history.
  • Handling:
    • There is no bad naming. TrsWM is the correct name for this.
    • Because of its shortness, maybe it is a "bad" article. But WP:DICTDEF doesn't say that bad articles have to be deleted. It says they have to be "cleaned up", which maybe is a bit mistakable, because it can mean "to delete" also like "to tidy". But there is a link to WP:REFERS. And also the rest of this subsection suggests "to tidy", not "to delete".
    • TrsWM is a stub with the possibility of expansion.
    • It contains no discussion about etymology, translations, usage, reflections, aso.
So, what is the problem with WP:DICTDEF?
Arguments beside WP:DICTDEF:
  • "Depth" is no argument. See deletion discussion about ratpoison.
  • Independent sources: For software handbooks, READMEs, homepages aso. are an important information source. They are usually the main source for information about features, use, related hard- and software, or the development history. And in most of this it is no problem, if there is no independent source.
  • Significant coverage: Is this your personal oppinion? Or do you have real evidence? Deletion shouldn't be only based on personal oppinion. Btw: We live in the age of cheap diskspace. Today, a terabyte more is no problem. I go regularly to a Wikipedia meeting in Cologne (Germany). The admins there shake their heads about the "Löscheritis" (deletion delusion). The common meaning is improving instead of deleting. Relevance criteria should be seen as a help, not a checklist. --Duschgeldrache2 (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cienfuegos' Scientific Electronic Medical Journal

edit
Cienfuegos' Scientific Electronic Medical Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy delete - author blanked Nancy talk 13:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ife Akintayo

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

Non-notable "singer/actress". The article only makes mention of being an extra in films, which does not satisfy WP:ENT. Only other comment is "will try to find some acting jobs" and "will be attending the Brit School." Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hunchentoot

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete (non-admin closure) 2 says you, says two 23:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-atlantic leather

edit
Mid-atlantic leather (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 event WuhWuzDat 15:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 16:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DNN (radio)

edit
DNN (radio) (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 defunct underlying network for radio Rapido (talk) 14:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Microsoft PowerToys. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Power Calculator

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

There is almost nothing in the vast array of XP books on this add-on utility. I found a mention in this book [32], but it's too trivial to count as in-depth WP:SECONDARY source. Web reviews of the PowerToys don't give it any extraordinary attention either, e.g. [33], [34]. So, I don't see why a separate article is justified. Pcap ping 13:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 16:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Release Radio

edit
Release Radio (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 mobile telephone service, unsourced Rapido (talk) 13:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar fm

edit
Sugar fm (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)

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard M Holmes

edit
Richard M Holmes (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)

BLP for someone who does not meet notability requirements. RandomTime 03:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

–MuZemike 09:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Which notability guideline to look at? As a game designer, perhaps WP:CREATIVE? Have his works "won significant critical attention"? AFAICT, none of the games he is credited with on MobyGames qualify for this. Holmes does not appear to meet the WP:GNG either (significant, independent coverage). Marasmusine (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This smells of self-promotion. I see primary sources and MobyGames links. The MobyGames links are about as useful as IMDb (interpret that however you wish). The bottom line is there isn't any non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications here, thus the person is failing basic WP:BIO guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 07:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to IncaGold. The article shows no independent WP:RS covering the subject, nor I can find ones. Happy to change !vote, as usual, if evidence of notability comes out. --Cyclopiatalk 15:14, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lack of 3rd party coverage. Name, as used in title, is not a very likely search term, so skip redirect. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Static Radio (Ireland)

edit
Static Radio (Ireland) (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)

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The argument that this is insufficiently sourced to satisfy WP:BIO has not been refuted. If this subject is found to be notable at a later date, the material may be restored for the purpose of creating a properly sourced article, but there is no value in userfying/"incubating" an article that maybe will turn out to be notable. Shereth 21:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vigoon "Phai" Boonthanom

edit
AfDs for this article:
Vigoon "Phai" Boonthanom (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)

renomination due to lack of votes last time. fails WP:BIO. also non notable due to WP:ONEVENT. complete lack of coverage of this individual, [35], [36], google also reveals hardly anything [37] LibStar (talk) 12:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is not even any thai WP article on this person. it may be the case this person is not notable in English WP. LibStar (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's only 53,807 Thai Wikipedia articles, so although inclusion would guarantee notability, its coverage of anything is severely lacking, as nearly all non-European language Wikis are. We should not preclude notability because of cultural bias. We need his name in Thai script before we can assess his notability. MMetro (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to play devils advocate, if the article is deleted, and at a later date someone finds thai sources demonstrating additional notability, I'm sure recreation of the article would be accepted. However between the two nominations this page has been at AFD for 25-26 days and we haven't seen these any of these Thai articles.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in the previous AfD, a Google search for his name in Thai[38] (ไวกูรส์ บุญถนอม) does return quite a few hits, even more for a combination of his nickname and first name,[39] but most of them concern either the incident or the single song on the First Stage Project 2 album which featured him; either don't seem to establish notability on their own, but they should be considered together. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for his name, Paul. I copied his name onto my cousins' Facebook pages to see if there is any recognition among themselves or their Thai friends. I'll ask for what he's done, sources, etc. If I feel that the information is there, and just not easily accessible in English or by Google, I'd vote Keep. Otherwise, Delete is acceptable to me, and probably the right decision. Thanks to those who've extended the nominations to try to get a better consensus. And if by chance, there's some improvements to the article during my inquiry, maybe there is more to be said about him. MMetro (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incubate. If he fails notability, this may be the appropriate solution. With his sister having been signed as a consequence of his death, should she reach notability, her article could use the background about her brother. We are very reluctant to delete, given the notability of the tragic circumstance, which means maybe we should try to save the article to the degree that Wikipedia will let us. MMetro (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable as a musician.....died in a freak accident which we could put under either WP:ONEVENT or WP:NOTNEWS. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 17:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reel FM

edit
Reel FM (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)

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 12:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Panik

edit
Radio Panik (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 pirate radio station; unsourced material Rapido (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 17:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Ivre

edit
Radio Ivre (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 pirate radio station; completely unsourced Rapido (talk) 12:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (NAC) RMHED (talk) 17:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Invicta (London Pirate Station)

edit
Radio Invicta (London Pirate Station) (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 pirate radio station, completely unsourced Rapido (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Frequency 88.1

edit
Radio Frequency 88.1 (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)

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Store Stanford Shopping Center

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

One of 283 storefronts for the Apple Store retail chain. Doesn't pass the WP:CHAIN notability guideline. Notability tag has been on this page almost a year without any independent sources added. A reasonable search for sources finds lots of mirrors for this page, but no independent reliable sourcing. Only links are to the store site, and to Apple's site. Because bulk of article constitutes uncited original research, I'm not seeing any merge appropriate targets either; Stanford Shopping Center contains an uncited claim and a link to this page. BusterD (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invent Yourself a Shortcake

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

I can't find significant coverage for this demo. Joe Chill (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep (NAC) RMHED (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Centraal

edit
Radio Centraal (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 pirate radio station; completely unsourced Rapido (talk) 11:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was able to find a bunch of mentions in books on Google Books, primarily in Dutch. Language barriers prevent me from adding to the story. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (NAC) Garibaldi Baconfat 20:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Dio

edit
Radio Dio (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)

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow Talk 18:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 08:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The station started out as a pirate radio station, but it is now licenced by the Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel and therefore automatically notable. See this reference: "Radio Dio à Saint-Étienne : avis favorable au plan de continuation". Conseil supérieur de l'audiovisuel. 6 May 2008. Retrieved 25 December 2009. - Eastmain (talk) 08:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 17:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point Blank FM

edit
Point Blank FM (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)

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (NAC) RMHED (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PCRL

edit
PCRL (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 pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pixadex

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

I can't find any significant coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources for this software. The only review I found is on a personal website. Pcap ping 11:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i see no reason for deletion. the information is accurate, concise and supported by external links. the information is important for historical purposes. it will become more important over time as websites change and companies go out of business. finding information on older software can be very difficult --Ed andrews (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kol TSion HaLokhemet

edit
Kol TSion HaLokhemet (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 material, non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 11:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs work, such as more careful placement of references, which, at the moment, do not always match the information in the preceding sentence. But this is a historic station, possibly a first of its type, and I see no reason for deleting the article.--Gilabrand (talk) 09:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good point as to the article need work. The fault is all mine. Fearing people might not look at the refs, I toss 1-2 dozen in w/some text. Where you cannot see them as supporting the text, it may be those articles that don't show all of the text on the page. I had thought I faithfully reflected what I could see (which in some books is more than you can see from the ref). But my additions were not artful--everyone should feel free to take a crack at fixing it if they like. No pride of authorship at all on this one.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linkinus

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

I can't find any significant coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources for this software. I did find some reviews on blogs, but those don't count. Pcap ping 11:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7zX

edit
7zX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any significant coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources for this software. One trivial mention in a book in French. Pcap ping 11:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree, there isn't much out there to source this one. A mention at 7z might not be a bad idea, if this software does something novel and interesting with the format. I don't see sources that show that, though. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bruji

edit
Bruji (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. No indication why this software company is notable. Pcap ping 11:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EZ 7z

edit
EZ 7z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any significant coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources for this software. The MacUpdate link is just a catalog description and download link. Pcap ping 11:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flux (mac software)

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

I can't find significant coverage in reliable WP:SECONDARY sources for this software. There are some review on blog-type sites, macstories.net (no "about us" page on the staff), macapper.com (practically a student fan site) Pcap ping 11:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline A7 doesn't apply to software. GedUK  23:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teleport (software)

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

I can't find any significant coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources for this software. Pcap ping 11:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GUI Tar

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

I can't find any significant coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources for this software. Pcap ping 11:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KBFR (pirate radio)

edit
KBFR (pirate radio) (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 pirate radio station; article completely consists of unsourced material Rapido (talk) 11:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free Radio San Diego

edit
Free Radio San Diego (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 pirate radio station; mostly unsourced material Rapido (talk) 11:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - if more sources can be added as other editors have claimed, those, combined with some seemingly decent ones already provided, might be enough to push this over the inclusionary hump. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted at 04:35, 31 December 2009 by User:Fastily (non-admin closure) — ækTalk 05:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snagasaurus

edit
Snagasaurus (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 neologism Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 17:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dream 107.6 FM

edit
Dream 107.6 FM (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)

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 11:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as station as received coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources with more apparently locked behind pay-walls. - Dravecky (talk) 08:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - there only seem to be a couple of mentions in the Independent article (where it is mentioned along with several other stations), and the other references have no relevence to the text. This would still infer that the article fails WP:N and should be deleted. Rapido (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Storeton Community Radio

edit
Storeton Community Radio (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)

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lionshare

edit
The Lionshare (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 film distributed online. Can find no info on it. Ridernyc (talk) 10:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 17:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This film has been promoted on the front page of thepiratebay and while not guaranteed, has the potential to be an important film. I believe it has the potential to be one of the first films released under Creative Commons to gain large notariety and distribution. As can been seen on lionsharemovie.com, this film has received critical acclaim from smaller film festivals. In addition, it is listed on IMDB. I feel as though deleting this entry would be a crime. Hopefully this makes some sense. SLATE (talk) 06:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is a new type of film distribution and has been nominated for several awards for 2009. It is not yet know well, but the idea is great. Amazon even has it for sale, that makes it real. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.179.16.130 (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Merseywaves

edit
Radio Merseywaves (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)

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 10:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concept FM

edit
Concept FM (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)

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Pirate Radio

edit
AfDs for this article:
Liverpool Pirate Radio (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 pirate radio station, AFD'd before (result delete), appears to be recreated Rapido (talk) 10:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Central Radio International

edit
Central Radio International (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)

another non-notable pirate radio station Rapido (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 17:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merseyland Alternative Radio

edit
AfDs for this article:
Merseyland Alternative Radio (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 pirate radio station; previously AFD'd and deleted. Seems to be re-create Rapido (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Highly notable pirate station (along with Radio Jackie North) as the two most significant stations of '80s Northern UK pirate radio (there were many such stations, but these are the only two I'd really see as notable). I still fail to see why there is so much resistance to articles on these two stations. Not surprisingly, it's a great disincentive for anyone to work on their content when other editors are so obviously keen to delete these two. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - can you explain Merseyland Alternative Radio's notability, as currently it appears to fail WP:N?
      • Web coverage is out there, paper coverage in Soundwaves (the usual journal of record for UK pirate radio matters) and also NME and Sounds, the general music weeklies of the period. Similarly for RJN. Remember that these stations were operating in the pre-web era, so web coverage is scant and is generally limited to nostalgia fan sites.
The real reason why these two stations (and not the others) are notable is that they were the "home" stations for two people: Bert Williams and Rick Dane (on-air names) who were the driving force behind the many and varied radio pirates in NW England for many years. Most of the pirates came and went almost overnight, in a way that's far from notable, but these two stations were long-term features of the scene that the rest revolved around.
What is wrong (and has been used to delete these articles previously) is to apply the standards for US broadcast stations(!)
As to the large number of other UK pirate stations recently AfDed by Rapido, then for those I wouldn't argue that they were notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I can find no reference to Soundwaves anywhere, and no I cannot "check my back issues" as you previously instructed me to do! You seem to be suggesting that the 2 stations are mostly notable for having Bert Williams and Rick Dane as DJs. However they do not have their own articles themselves, thus if they are not notable, how can the stations be notable as a result? Rapido (talk) 10:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So your argument is firstly that notability is inherited(wrong), and secondly that the current non-existence of an article on the progenitor of such notability invalidates any notability of the related article (wrong again). Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You said: The real reason why these two stations (and not the others) are notable is that they were the "home" stations for two people: Bert Williams and Rick Dane. Even if that were added to the articles, they would still fail WP:N, unless you can provide reference to your currently uncited assertions on why the stations were notable for having these DJs. Rapido (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You (and you alone, as far as I can see) have repeatedly AfDed articles on these two stations, and on most other pirate stations. This has been justified(sic) by them being "from long ago" and because they don't have US station registrations. Sources have also been provided (print & web) and you have raised permissible, albeit nit-picking, criticism of the reliability of those sources (although you've still failed to address why the Liverpool Echo isn't WP:RS). Clearly the sourcing of these topics isn't great, but that's far from unusual for niche interests of this pre-web period. Nor do I see that as the most terrible wikicrime, when the most trivial of garbage gets added with "sources", just because of the accumulation of near-worthless web content attached to everything these days.
Clearly you have something of an axe to grind here. No matter how many other editors see these two articles as notable, you will re-AfD them. That's not a consensus action. Nor for that matter is your persistent refusal to notify other involved editors of the AfD, as required. In that context, it's hard to justify putting much effort into an article when one editor is so persistently trying to destroy it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See WP:AOBF, please desist from such accusations in future. Here is for discussing the article, not for discussing me. The AFD is nothing to do with US licences, or where you get such an idea from. I am not even in the US or care for their licenced stations, so that has no relevence. You say No matter how many other editors see these two articles as notable, well at the previous AFD for this article, you were the only one with a keep, and the article was deleted. The article has since been recreated with more or less the same content, and same lack of sources or notability, so it's obvious to re-AFD it. For Radio Jackie North, it was AFD'd twice before, and was deleted both times; as well as being speedy deleted another time. Rapido (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: - There may not be too much in the article but then again pirate stations always were a bit "underground" shall we say? At leats there are a couple of references. --Cexycy (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marek Behnke

edit
Marek Behnke (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 young English skier, winner of a junior competition. The article was proded (by myself) with this rationale: Subject of this article doesn't meet the criteria for athletes. Lack of reliable third party sources proving notability of the subject. Prod template was removed without significant improvements. Vejvančický (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - When looking at general notability, the article provides a single reference to a newspaper article covering his under-19 series win. But I can find no other significant coverage about him. A single article isn't sufficient. Looking at WP:ATHLETE, I looked for evidence of him competing at the highest level of his sport. For alpine skiing, this would be the FIS World Cup events. Looking at the information on the FIS site, he is registered in both alpine and freestyle. Freestyle shows no results whatsoever. His alpine record is limited with no World Cup appearances (which would show in the competition record as FIS World Cup). As such, I don't see him satisfying the criteria as an athlete competing at the highest level of his sport. His win as a junior at the national level may foreshadow things to come, and when that day does come, then would be the time for this article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keys (game)

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

A pair of invented games added by the same author. No evidence of notability, WP:NFT, and even the link provided does not contain any information about this game. See also the author's comment at Talk:Keys (game), acknowledging lack of notability and expressing a wish that Wikipedia should be a forum for promoting as-yet-unknown topics.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to see evidence of a game that is not "invented". If you're asserting that I invented it, I'm sorry to say that I didn't, and am, in fact, not even a member of the organization which I believe did. The only evidence of the game I have is playing it with friends, and hearing of it from the 4H friends I know. I'm just trying to educate. If you happen to have information that contradicts a claim in the article, please correct it. Otherwise, to the best of my knowledge, the article is factual.Maxwelldangersearcy (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that the games described by my contributions are noteworthy due to their mere existence and context. The articles ARE helpful as they educate, and ARE notable as they can be verified by those whom the claims regard. "The author" as you put it in your above comment does not acknowledge "lack of notability" and DOES express a wish that Wikipedia promote as-yet-uknown (to its users) topics. Wikipedia is the best friend of the autodictact, and should remain so. Articles representing information which ONLY aides to bring into the lives of those who read it, new, factual information, should be unquestionably permitted on Wikipedia, regardless of Draconian regulations which prohibit the free trade of such information.Maxwelldangersearcy (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No worries, it's late here too and I'm going to bed also. I know it's rough, but unfortunately a lot of people's very first experience editing on Wikipedia is having their brand new article almost instantaneously tagged for deletion. It must be very annoying and I can see how it would be really off-putting, but the flip side is that it we didn't do that we'd be absolutely flooded with articles on nonsense phrases, "Brittany is the kewlest girl ever!!," and so on. So don't take it personally, and I hope you stick around and continue to edit here and there when you're reading a Wikipedia article and you see something you can improve. Thanks for your comment; if only all new editors kept it real!--  Glenfarclas  (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Brothers (2006 film)

edit
The Brothers (2006 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 17:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brown bailout

edit
Brown bailout (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)

"Brown bailout" is a term coined by FedEx to support its lobbying. This summer, the U.S. Congress debated (and in some ways is still debating) legislation that would result in FedEx Ground being defined as a trucking company, as opposed to an airline. Trucking companies fall under the National Labor Relations Act, meaning that their employees are able to unionize locally. Airlines are regulated under the Railway Labor Act, meaning that their employees can only unionize if they hold a national vote to do so. This means that it's much harder for airlines to unionize than trucking companies. UPS is regulated as a trucking company (because it was founded as such), so it is largely unionized. FedEx is regulated as an airline (because it was founded as such), so very few of its classes of employees are unionized. Under the assumption that unions raise costs, UPS wants to level the playing field, so they have lobbied in support of reclassifying FedEx as a trucking company. FedEx fought back with an ad campaign arguing that UPS is seeking a "bailout," and called it a "Brown bailout." Most of the campaign didn't go into any details of what's behind it, simply saying that UPS wants a bailout.

Sorry, that was pretty long. But it's necessary to understand this. Having a Wikipedia article about this term would be equivalent to creating an article for "death panels." It's a loaded term, violated WP:NPOV. It's also a neologism, violating WP:NEO. At best, I would support creation of an article about the above legislation and the FedEx and UPS responses to it, with "Brown bailout" serving as a redirect to a particular section. But this is nothing more than a public relations term coined for the express purpose of swaying public opinion. Jesuschex (talk) 04:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect and merge: If it was a big thing, do as proposer suggests and redirect to a subsection of the article on the economic stimulus plan. This should be covered, but not as a separate article, where it fails notability. (The NPOV thing strikes me as a bit silly, as if it commonly goes by that name it's not necessarily NPOV to call it by the name people gave it, even if that name is biased in favour of anti-unionism.) Zelse81 (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not related to the economic stimulus plan at all. FedEx uses the term "bailout" for public relations purposes. In a bailout, a government literal gives a corporation capital; this is far from that. As for NPOV, it does not commonly go by that name at all. It's a term FedEx gave it, and there's no evidence that the term has stuck in any sense. As for my suggestion for a redirect and merge, that would only work if there were actually an article about the proposed legislation, which there isn't. In other words, there is nothing to redirect and merge to. Jesuschex (talk) 00:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, WP:SNOW, cited sources do not carry support which meets WP:MUSIC. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kobi Arad

edit
Kobi Arad (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)

BLP with no useful citations to anything in English, possible sockpuppetry, possible copyvio material lifted from other websites, marked as possibly Non-notable. Jubilee♫clipman 02:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; I can't find any reliable sources that indicate notability. Everything that shows up on searches is in that vast self-promotion zone (Myspace, Yahoo, Facebook, mp3, Twitter, Amazon, ... Wikipedia ...) but absolutely nothing scholarly. I'll switch to keep if he's covered in anything scholarly, or if there is a non-trivial mention in a major, mainstream publication. And to add to the above -- beware sockpuppets. He has at least six so far, and they're transparently obvious, for multiple reasons. Antandrus (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just to explain the copyvio allegation I made: if you look at the edit page for this article (or one of its previous versions) you will find weird line breaks that suggest copy/paste from a box in a webpage. One of the attempted Wiki links in the first paragraph is was actually broken because of this. Does not prove copyvio but certainly suggests it. --Jubilee♫clipman 04:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — After much ado, editor Schoenberg129 helpfully admitted that he knows Arad and his manager personally.[59] I'm pleased that Schoenberg129 made a genuine and protracted effort, but as promising as Arad is, I don't think his "Wiki notability" has arrived. This article really doesn't get very many hits, the majority of which may be Wiki editors. Attempting to add FA class to an article that's of questionable notability tips the scales for me.[60] Enough editors have wasted time quibbling with the pro-Arad editor(s?). An experienced reader might look at the article's flimsy support and think "this guy isn't notable". I.e., the effect on Arad's career might actually be negative someplace where it will count (the day a record producer decides to check Wikipedia, for example). I'm not sure the article is to *anyone's* benefit, let alone the fact that Arad isn't notable (yet). Let's delete the article and move on. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Agreeing with all of the above. Too many editors have spent too much time trying to help this article into some useful form but there really is nothing with which to work. The subject would struggle to achieve general notability even in it's most generous broadest definition and he comes nowhere near WP:MUSIC. With claims such as "unique" and "forefront" one would expect some supporting coverage for verification but there is none. The Israel National Radio is an internet radio station of unknown significance. The Dizzy Gillespie transcription (co authored) earn him no mention on the publisher's website. Even their listing for the book itself does not earn him a credit. Today we have had links to reviews on JazzTimes added to the article but these are "community" reviews that were added today by someone who joined the community today. Lame Name (talk) 13:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. This has been a nuisance entry for some time, with endless reverts and general clutching at straws as far as references are concerned. The newest reference only manages to undermine one of the claims in the article (that he has the "only doctorate in third stream", see my talk page entry from today). I'm not convinced that Arad isn't notable, but his notability has never been established by any version of this article. Playing one gig at Blue Note doesn't make you notable. Getting one mention on a radio show doesn't, either. Where are the recordings, the press coverage, the interviews? It seems they are nowhere. If they don't start appearing, I'd have to vote delete. Hairhorn (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Blodance (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of Asia

edit
Military history of Asia (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)

Military history of Asia is too broad an item for an article - Southeast Asia, I suggest deletion and a 'start again' approach to the topic. Either linked articles to do with the regions of Asia - or a possible disambig page instead of current format, which is merely a list of links and not identified as such. Category and template both require attention in relation to this. SatuSuro 02:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Andrew Bogdania

edit
Mark Andrew Bogdania (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 individual lacking GHits and GNEWS coverage. Has written a couple of minor books, but nothing of substance. ttonyb (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Langley Flying School

edit
Langley Flying 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)

This article about a flying school was created by the self-professed owner of the school, as described on the article talk page. The article consists predominately of text cut-and-pasted from the school's own website, released under a Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike 3.0 unported license. The article fails to meet many Wikipedia policies, including notability, COI, NPOV and Spam. As documented on the article talk page, attempts to establish subject notability were not successful as few reliable third party references could be located. Attempts to edit the article to bring it into compliance have resulted in multiple reverts by the article's creator with edit summaries such as "key text was removed in the previous edit with without rationale--motivation and interest of the editor questioned", "Massive cuts to this article without communication of meanful rationale warrants continued concern for motivation and interests. Information was factual and of interest to the aviation community" and "You are exceeding your authority--provide rationale on talk page for your action so constructive dialogue can occur. Motivation and interests are in question". The resulting edit war ended with page protection, discussion and a consensus from editors, other than the page creator, to nominate the article for deletion as a non-notable subject and commercial self-promotion. Ahunt (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Mr. Hunt, you begin this debate with extracts from comments I made when I perceived YSSYguy's cuts on November 26th to this article as vandalism. I was concerned as approximately 30% of the article vanished this day without explanatory notes on the discussion page. Granted, your selected quotes reflect my inexperience in Wikiways, but it was a genuine effort to confront what I perceived to be YSSYguy's senseless destruction of the text. Clearly, after his work of November 26th, he was prepared to let the article stand—Mr. Hunt, this fact that the article was acceptable after the November edit/cuts is notably absent from your opening remarks (and we would be interested in your reflection on this). (NOTE TO READER: the YSSYguy cut of November was to remove a linked list of airlines that graduates of the school in question now fly as pilots, and included linked aircraft types flow by these men and women).
Mr. Hunt, you are clearly experienced in aviation as the list of your contributions indicates, but I do notice a certain focus in your expertise: you have a history of writing prolifically about the “stuff” of aviation—aircraft types, primarily a historic list. You have some editing experience in military flight operations, but I see from your published list of articles very little about civil flight operations. The application of "WP:ORG" to any description of human endeavour in aviation (other then historic record, military activitiy or the making of machines) is complex and significant since the far greater majority of aviation activitiy is civil and therefore commercial in nature. Let me ask you: are all civil aviation operations to be removed from the unlimited space that is wikipedia simply because the application of “WP:ORG” is complicated.
I was curious how you managed to apply “WP:ORG” in your own work in Wikipedia, and I’ll be honest in saying that you could be perceived as having a conflict of interest in each of the following acticles which you have contributed (even though you clearly are not an owner, employee, relative, or friend). I have sampled some of your work, and in particular, I would suggest, with respect (but in the spirit of debate), that each of the following articles that you have writen could be nomiated for deletion under “WP:ORG”. Many, perhaps, could be construed as “SPAM”. Symphony Aircraft Industries, Universal Helicopters, Ram Mounts, Wings Over Miami. I am not suggesting hypocracy, but I am curioius in how you navigated the rather tricky waters of commercial endeavour in these cases. --Dparry (talk) 13:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. I;m not opposed to listing the school in the airport article, if the airport's own website lists it. However, any claims such as "the flying school is an integral part of the airport operations and services" would need to be cited from reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That list of flying schools includes several on the other side of the country! It hardly demonstrates that this flying school is a big deal to the airport, though a sentence on its existence in the airport's article seems appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but bear in mind that the article creator/flying school owner has for some reason accused me of vindictiveness. At the end of the day, every one of us could write an article about the company we work for, but that doesn't mean that the article should exist. At the moment the only article that links to the flying school article is the airport article, where it is included as an external link; I agree with Buckshot06 - there could be mention of the flying school (and the local helicopter training organisation) in the airport article. YSSYguy (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With all due respect, YSSYguy, you objectively evaluated this article following your November 16 edit and it met your standards of acceptability and worth at that time. It was only after I challenged your lack of explanation that you sought removal.--Dparry (talk) 13:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As pointed out several times, I left edit summaries, which is something you failed to do for the majority of the edits you made. The article did not "meet my standards", go back and re-read the discussion on the article talk page. The poor quality of your linking to the airlines and aircraft types is what drew my attention to the article in the first place (for example King Fisher) and those links were in a paragraph that just did not have a place in any article; your inability to accept that is possibly one reason we are here now. The last edit you made before I saw the article (which was not on 16 November, but that is by-the-by) was one of the few that did have a summary, you stated, "Clean up completed and ready for review"; well, it is being reviewed. YSSYguy (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article massively fails WP:ORG and has clear and obvious problems with WP:NPOV, WP:COI and WP:SPAM. - Nick Thorne talk 23:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, with all due respect, Nick Thorne, your prolific and impressive contribution to aviation in Wikipedia appears to be limited to military history, and I'm not convinced your comment in regard to the more tricky application of WP:ORG to commercial aviation operations, especially in the field of civil aviation training, is meaningful.--Dparry (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DParry, this comment is what is known in the logic racket as an "Ad hominem". As such, your comments run perilously close to violating WP:NPA. If you continue along this vein you run the risk of being sanctioned by a passing admin, so take care. I suggest you deal with the substance of the comments made by myself and others rather than making snide remarks about our areas of expertise, about which you can know absolutely nothing. Unless you begin to take these comments seriously it is highly likely that your article will be deleted, as the concerns about it have not been addressed. - Nick Thorne talk 21:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nick Thorne: sorry about that, I was simply attempting to interpret the constructive nature of your input here. I don't think you are attempting Dog Pile tactics. I did, however, want to point out to readers your comparative lack experience in the editing civil/commercial flight operations. No personal affront intended, respectfully. --Dparry (talk) 23:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dparry (talk • contribs) 23:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stick to the subject at hand. Whatever the amount of "experience" (as defined by you) I may have with editing general aviation articles is entirely beside the point. We are not discussing my edit history, but whether or not we should delete the article about your flying school. Please refrain from making further comments about other editors in this discussion. You have not addressed the issues raised with this article, especially those of notability, but also thos of NPOV, COI and SPAM. These requirements are not unique to general aviation articles, all Wikipedia articles are required to pass them. The article under discussion plain and simply fails these requirements and so should be deleted. - Nick Thorne talk 22:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
D, Wiki editors do tend to take on projects of their own interest, not necessarily indicative of their background or experiences, but Ahunt and I do have a background in general and civil aviation in the "real" world. FWiW, so does our Aussie friend, Yguy! However, as mentioned earlier, that is not the issue at hand. Addressing the concerns that were posed, including your earlier comment that you were willing to "de-spam" is the first step. Have you any secondary or tertiary sources that recount the story of Langley Flying School? A newspaper or periodical article that tells the story of one of the graduates, for example, illustrates the significance of the operation. Your company's listing in a guide such as the Wings magazine trade listings of Western Canada aviation companies may be of use. Bzuk (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In order: Magazine style TV program; Blog; Directory listing; Directory listing; Incidental mention in a news item; Incidental mention in a news item; an attribution of an image by David Parry of Langley Flying School; an acknowledgement of David Parry of langley Flying School for contribution to an FAQ; Directory listing; 1 paragraph in a 37 page local business guide; Incidental mention in a news item
You need to understand that these "sources" to not meet WP:RS and none of them (nor indeed all of them together) establish notability. All they say is that there is a such a flying school, nothing is said that shows that it is notable. - Nick Thorne talk 14:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This extensive search done by User:Dparry and accurately assessed by User:Nick Thorne duplicates the same work and conclusions that I came to, as documented on Talk:Langley Flying School#Article issues. The West Coast Adventures article and the TSB accident report (Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Aviation Investigation Report A03P0068 Spiral Dive - Collision with Terrain - Langley Flight School - Piper PA-28-140 C-GNUD - Langley Airport, British Columbia, 6 NM NE - 25 March 2003) I found (and User:Dparry missed in his list above) are the only two sources that come close to WP:N. The fact that even the school's owner could only locate business directory listings and incidental mentions in articles about other subjects, like the death of former students, does tend to lend a good deal of weight to the assertion that this school does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards for an article. - Ahunt (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability nothing in the article that jumps out to say we are just not a flying school but have some major achievements and recognition. Most of the article still needs to be pruned for non-notable information and once that is done it just says we are a normal flying school in Langley doing a good job like all the other thousands of flying schools. MilborneOne (talk) 22:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:CORP, is a self-admitted WP:COI, and strikes me as borderline spammy (the statement "I simply wish to begin by urging readers to familiarize themselves with this institution through its website" seems like a round-about way of saying "advertising"). Cocytus [»talk«] 03:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP reads like spam clearly a COI issue lack WP:notability. I could go on, but I think the above comments cover more of the issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite much advice freely given that may have allowed the article to stay it appears that no significant attempt has been made to address the concerns. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 00:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Final Comment. I just wanted to take the opportunity thank everyone for allowing me to participate in this process, and I'm grateful for the time and energy of those who have read and commented. I am a tremendous fan of an open and free Wikipedia and I am appreciative of the fact that it has only evolved to its current level of success because of the commitment of individual editors such as yourselves. I must apologize for the my periodic critical comments related to personal styles and editing histories--these were fielded in the spirit of rigorous debate only. Best regards --Dparry (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. There seems to be an adequately strong agreement that it's too soon for this article to exist to justify deletion. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013

edit
Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013 (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)

Do we really need a page for election that is 4 years away? Ridernyc (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History of Sri Lanka: post-Colonial era (since 1948)

edit
History of Sri Lanka: post-Colonial era (since 1948) (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 history of Sri Lanka does not only include the periods of the pre-Colonial era and the post-Colonial era when there have been many different stages of the history of Sri Lanka such as prehistory, ancient history, medieval history, colonial history and twentieth century history. Plus this is just a copy of all the information related to the page taken from the History of Sri Lanka page. Blackknight12 (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Unlike the other sri-lankan history article nominated for deletion - this one does not appear to hold more information than its mother article - in fact in some areas it has less. There appears to be some information in this article that is exclusive and does not appear in the mother article, but there is more exclusive material in the mothr article. I suggest that either The mother article is restructured into summary style and the full treatment is moved to the spinnout articles or the spinnout articles are deleted. I am not about to undertke the rewriting of the mother article myself even though that seems to be the preferrable option - therefore delete.·Maunus·ƛ· 08:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporaneous corroboration

edit
Contemporaneous corroboration (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 opening paragraph makes it sound like the article will discuss how historians have greater confidence in a conclusion supported by multiple contemporary sources. This follows logically from historians' interest in contemporary sources and in mutually corroborating sources, and doesn't deserve an article to itself (historical method seems adequate here).

In fact, the rest of the article is about the value of studying historical events without considering known "conclusions" – I can't tell whether it's using this word to mean "judgements by other historians" or merely "subsequent events" – and how that approach supposedly underpins the use of present-tense narrative in television documentaries. This seems to be original research – at least, the article doesn't cite any sources, and a search of Google Books doesn't find any instances of the phrase "contemporaneous corroboration" being used with such a meaning. EALacey (talk) 22:09, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvia El Nakkady

edit
Sylvia El Nakkady (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)

Speedy declined on the grounds that the magazine she directs is notable, and indeed it gets a lot of ghits. But I am not able to find any sources about Ms. El Nakkady herself, in fact I was not even able to find any primary sources. Delete, and create an article on the magazine.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Waffle. I've found three different spellings for her name so far, none leading to solid sourcing, and two different spellings for the magazine. I suspect the problem is a lack of English-language coverage, and an inability to do a useful native language search. I'm not comfortable deleting a subject who's likely notable, but I'm uncomfortable about the idea of keeping a BLP that's so hard to source that we aren't even able to identify a standard transliteration of her name. I haven't even been able to find enough to write a decent stub about the magazine, so that this could be merged with the intent of spinning this back off if/when adequate coverage is found. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. I've added this to the lists of Egypt-related discussions and Middle East-related discussions to get more eyes on it. No opinion re the standard transliteration, given the fact that Muammar al-Gaddafi has over 30 different transliterations of his name, all equally accurate. (Edit to remove Middle East, as Egypt isn't included.) --NellieBly (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. —NellieBly (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete under criterion G3. The utter absence of sources, coupled with the nonsense in the second paragraph, make it clear it's a hoax. —C.Fred (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umplesketch

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

Seems to be entirely made up. I can find no sources for this whatsoever. Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Consensus is that this person passes WP:AUTH regardless of WP:PROF. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Swirski

edit
Peter Swirski (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 doesn't show any reliable sourcing for assertion of notability, and all I got on a Google search were lists of book reviews and bookstore hits. Fails WP:BIO, WP:GNG and WP:N at the very least. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 00:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome new editor! It's Lem who has had the huge sales not Swirski, whose cites are tiny. Notability is not inherited. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you for your welcome and you are right to a point-out that the statement can be misleading. But reviewing an author for inclusion, one of the areas I believe we look at is who reviews the authors work (i.i Book reviews) and I have found that this particular author, Peter Swirski with concern to Lem, books were reviewed by the Star Tribune – The Boston Globe - Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service = Foundation – The International Review of Science Fiction as provided here [68]. The The Washington Post – International Herald Tribune – The Modern Language Review, as provided here [69]. The Age [70] Encyclopedia of World Biography – Extrapolation as shown here [71] plus many more. Hope this helps and Happy New Year.JAAGTalk 15:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per Jaag. Joe Chill (talk) 15:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. GS gives h index = 4. Nowhere near enough for WP:Prof #1. Other notabilty is not apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep: Y'know, I've seen putative failure of this "h-index" cited as deletion grounds a few times over the past few weeks. Quite aside from that the index is a widely criticized measure created for physicists (of which the subject of this AfD is not one), I missed the part where it was written as a valid measure of notability into WP:PROF, or by what methodology Xxanthippe is applying it here. I place significantly greater reliability on Jaag's research, the more so in that I can follow his links and review it for myself.  Ravenswing  09:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But we need to know, not whether he has done and published research (all professors do that), but whether his research has had a big impact, in order to justify a keep of the article according to WP:PROF #1. The h-index is very problematic, I'll grant, but when it is high it does show impact without requiring a lot of subject-specific expertise to interpret it. When it is low it doesn't show very much (maybe we're just not using the right database to find the impact) but it does mean that one avenue to convincing other people of a pass of WP:PROF is blocked. Jaag's analysis of who reviews the books is an alternative that I like better because it's less bean-counting, but in this case it seems to lead towards WP:AUTH rather than WP:PROF. Not that there's anything wrong with that. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It seems from the discussion above that he does not pass WP:PROF #1 but Jaag's evidence persuades me that we should take a much closer look at whether he passes WP:AUTH. Is he "regarded as an important figure or widely cited by his peers" (#1)? No, I think that's covered by the arguments against WP:PROF. Is he known for originating a significant new concept (#2)? The article argues for his "nobrow" concept but a Google scholar search for that word finds other earlier inventions of it as having more currency. Is his work the subject of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" (#3)? Maybe, maybe not. There is a review of his nobrow book in the Journal of American Studies but essentially all academic books get academic reviews; I think that should be counted in terms of WP:PROF rather than WP:AUTH since it doesn't really speak to how the book was received in popular culture. And there is a review in "International Fiction Review", a forum that is not significant enough to have its own Wikipedia article. And there's a review of his Lem Reader in Canadian Slavonic Papers (another academic journal) which is spammed across multiple Google news archive entries but again doesn't really speak to popular culture. He's mentioned in The Age but in a fairly trivial way; the article isn't really about him or his works. And he's also mentioned in "The Lem Chronicles", Boston Globe 2002, but again that article seems to be primarily about Lem. Does his work belong to many significant libraries (#4)? From Lowbrow to Nobrow is in 265 libraries, about par for an academic book; his others are similar or fewer. And #5 is WP:PROF again. So no criterion is really persuasive, but ultimately I decided on a keep because I think being an author of a half-dozen or so books from reputable publishers and that are of some interest to the general public should be enough for an article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - while it's doubtful he passes WP:PROF, it's seems like he might scrape by under WP:AUTH, which others have noted. Cocytus [»talk«] 03:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete Enigmamsg 20:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maria De Berlangeer-Lichtert

edit
Maria De Berlangeer-Lichtert (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. Prod reason was "This article is not a neutral biography, but a slanted portrayal of one incident masquerading as one." (Wikipedia:Coatrack). Prod was removed with reason "seems to be an acceptable subject matter just needs improving" - the removal of the Prod was then reverted. An earlier version of this article was speedy deleted as the creation of a banned user. Listing is procedural. SilkTork *YES! 00:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ http://www.crimesofpassion.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=11
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_December_31&oldid=1234119280"